Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 03p.es.ouGFO Ce '1s, '' ~ ,, ") fl,. ,. f.l C:> /<" l~ (l t r1+et_t({ ~ V . ' c:;, bt), -~ ')~ LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Vuecrest Estates LUA13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD September 16, 10:00 PM NAME l~C,lt-Q,V J_,k~ Owe,v Re<=~ e c'ta.L, NP£',2 .. :x:, t'-.\ E..J2_1c J:=i AJvS o ,J . , ~J .D Q~.ss -:u.....,- ::}";-y-,; c. Ua !!z;r- ..) \1/V'\ CriV'\(~,Q_\k cl le,1 \. t)r~-:c. ~\. ----ra-<J_I ~ -;/11A1} .. < N ,f z... R~~V\~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS (including City & Zip} Phane # with area cade --~(optiongl} ~:w ·1 tt, M r-1 Vb lr-wv\ wA "{CV1> ) l( l/ / /v -3;,z;?'i \-/,..,_, f s;:.,._ pt, ? 6( () 3! 3 LI 2 I 02. N i) !-Le> S w 'ih 'lliLl-e.6--f2 1:'r, 4-7\1 S11cnit::C.J" Av&-S f.c,s, t>N cfrS6C:')- :11 il O. .. .. 123 ::, 'i 1-$-:f"""' l<i~c:µ / 6..:J-:, <.... ly~ I )J. 3 'f ri-5+ :JJJ-vo 5<~ 1 i ,,4 ff//, o~ fd-c~, 315 8 D '-' ~S-5 S . l/-8-iti S\-·, 14:"' .\,,,1. Jf 55 if-0 lZ.. (v._CJ'v v i""'co -~ S. ~<.~L "(i,l'-, '1; {Az.s-713 ·Y I I Email (optional} eo1:u ~,&V) ',Dl\@J-v-tl'ii"~I I · cJ W?t<i-!P';MHa>. ( Cr'\ j,"i" \ti;.,_ ~Q ~,,~/,,v ... f,v~J. r, \ ""''""'"~ l,J_.Vv\(i/ \ . ("d'v. JlCc'--fJ 2@A.c'') u_ C:c I ¥& / f #t" ,'..fl", Lt711,5'~,- ,_ ::;-Id,, ~ 7,?~...s·-5 -'/«J-c2'77 ?'-?& 7\J1 ') <"· 7"J/.,,, I. -~'<?m,-<.e?-/, , t12.'5 -ft~C;--!o"j ;1 Ir ·•) C <? ,1 '8r~ •,,'~ V ''f ~~' ! ; VUECREST ESTATES LUA13-000642 ' . :;~:~~~C~~E••••••~~.~~1 i IIBIIIIII !l~lii~;f ifi~:~ llo H+H-HH-H+++-t-ttrrrrH~~ '!:;] t~ltlll!II !!~!!tl!lllllll:I!~ ~ .......,...,,.., ...... , -~-,,,---"'-- ' ! ! i I J .. J I!~ i ~, VUECREST ESTATES -------.-__ ,__ -------_ -----------_ I II • LUA13-000642 I N .. "' 8 0 I .., < 3 - " U1 j le ' < ~ ,_ ' el ,_ el "' " ~I I r~w.:r ,./ '"")-_ .. /., I I i :,::,. 1H c.i,_..,.. __ ""' 811 __ .._..._ --ll~R~1:;::~ SE l/ 4 s.VUECREST ESTATES£, W.M .. . "ii ... ,18 ·_,X:-::-, = of{ Rf:~SKlH -1~ ~-C / .. , ·, "-, -.:;,,_ ..... .!!'!. -.. .., lll4rEIIJ'PRl"=c; .-, ,_; ' ' ~: ·-I.:..:.. I ..:.==. *" ;R C.TY OF REf\'TON e,,..,~,/B""""li"L<bl' ~-o.,.._ '1REE R£TEN'110N OULUA 710NS ..... .-...-. .. ,, =:==~,.,,;.. ~-..... ,.. .. ,..,,,,..._,,... _,,,,.., __ 'lf'~"-'!~•v -----...-.,-~-r"""""" ..... ''''" '""' .::w..:-~;:t:,,_.,,. x,~,.....,11£....,,... 0 ,....., ... ...,/") @ NOR.TH GRAPHCSC,CE LJ 'b WECREST EST A 1ES PRELIMINARY PLAT TREE CIJTTlfGAND LOO CLEARJNG Pl.AN ,....,, . .,,- "" """'" "°' ,~,,,. IAl::H"IN' ¥·if-I ' ' 1--1-LLIII I , . l ! ·!l .,, I (' I I I I \ \ ' VUECREST ;~;:;~ LUA13-000642 \ "I ' ' ii 111 ! ii . ,, ! ,. 111 !I . . ,~ 1! ,, ii 11 ' I' ' d 11,l , I I •p I I I I I I i :I 8 0 0 I ~ < 3 - " u, l le § ~ ' l!l >-l!l 0: u ~I I ~u=- ', _;,,· la ~ =""""" ~=:= °"''_""" ....... '"'"" 811 --..-,::,.,1,o -·· SE 1/ 4 SEVUECREST ESTATES E; W.!I .. :17. ,- >---<· 1 · ..... --. -,. R"100" - ' O,; ~-·18 19 20 .._ -::....., '°"'·'\( ', ' '</ ,l '"' :' ' ,--;:-;..;-~--- IV '~~='Pt~,t-c:i'J·~,e"JCe" ,--~\~--- /--;_-~-...... ; ,' -,' C I/. ~.,:-:{ /· CT"B" , ',)...'_- ____ .,,. /''·. T~ .. .-,. TRACT·'.'C', , ... ..,.,..,...';;- '.<:; / / / I M-1-~~-1 ;,;_"'" I * ~ ~kiJTC\'~ -"'""""'""""''""o/1'""''""""'"'"'- ' VUECREST EST A TES PREUMINARY PLAT """"'""""'"" DRS PRD.ECT NO. l:Zl02 @ NOR.TH G"""IC"""1.E l......J;' ':'I ' ' ' ' !~ I , I ! 11 I, 1 i~ .I • 11 111 ii~ i1 \ *l l.'--· : \ ,'; .. , I . ;• .• ' I I I I \ ' ' ' VUECREST ESTA TES LUA13-000642 ', ," · 1-, · .. i 1( /( I -:""' I ,'\ I ''1 I . ,I I I I I I I! I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ',~ -._·. f \. ·· 1 · . \ (•. VUECREST :~~:.;; LUA13-000642 l I I ! I ,., I I -I kl I <;: ... l j I I I s:~ ... I ~~ I I' ~/l I I mt ! I I I i I .. I' ""-iae ifC: 1, ~J-! ~ti ~~~ ... I, •• I ..., ..... if' i I I ... I 11 ' I ! ' • I' . I ::-ti . ;1 ' ':------AJ1r- I ~~ . ~! I • I I "' I .. l'> I ,, . I I :t~.1 "' ~' ~. ~ I . "ii • ' @ ...... ,,.,._,., \ I •= 'u -f!!'//iiP' "'"-J_ .._, , I I . ) SE l/4 SEVUECREST ESTATES £; W.ll .. __________ J_L ____ ~ ____ ':! ___ ~~Y 11 LJ if !.,.-~ I I , , I I I , ,, "' i I i ,-~ ,-)le ii ! ! ;, , I >--~--'---t-------lE fr! / I ' I t;; I i ! LLI ' , I 5 I I r w ' ' 5 / / f---'--~ I I ------{ i I ' ' PRo.ECT SITE' I I PROPOsro PLA r or ' ' W£CR£ST £SrA TES ----+,H I i ~! I , 11 I i------------::;;===:c~ • ii I I ~ I I ~ I i ~ I i ~ ' ' ) I I I I I I I i I I ,--------L-------.-----'--1 i i --- 1 i i~~~~ i I i '-------t---,L---;:=;== 1-----,-=1-.---H I I I i i i I! • I iJ: ._ • rm D.R. STRONG II ::Jii;:.:.: _ ,, ~ ::.::=-._.. ,~.,· --...... ..,"••-.,,,;,~i'i' --"'-"'IOW l•IMrrl-1~ i-:;:, Is· 1 *' ~t~YTg~ -----,Oo~~o/8.uldlao/P_, """'' O.,.t NQ'TE: ~..-.-OH ....... ..WMMM'-1!1.Y.,__..,._,r...., \11.JECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT ~[)DETALI.IAP @ NORTH GR-<:SC'I.E \.,..,:.w '*-- ~ "' ..,.., DAS PR<l.ECT NO. 1~02 IL/UA l ~ -< i tn " '" ; 5 TRACT"F" --\~?i .. - i'o -=1 ' : ' ._:: : :_:" _. . /-.. --- / 16 e.1,-.,.,..~-Dta 811 ---Orior --~ ··~····~· .... ~[· ._..... .: .. I ~"-.· , \ :, 1 I '" :·'·· ' SE t/ 4 SE~/UECREST ESTATES E, • I W.M .. N01'S i~' "'1,= '.17." d8 \__19'. 20 2 / .·,3, ')', 16 ', I ·4 " :.~TRACT "E"' t ~···· ·. 'flli/ij ·.~ Iii: 14 . I· I ~; ···.·· Ill" . i ' [~· T • · 1· . '. ·.. ·111·/ , .... \ .-·-·--· .-·.-1·,-: --1-·-___ ,. \~· ~.~. ·~ .' 1 · fl 12 'l/,c, ·"" I .,,) ' . I '.' I,\,' / ,., '· '' 10;, I>, I·• ',, \, 8 -~--P J! (W) """""1wc~ RC\o\SION ~,~.,~I~ 11:;:11®·1 ~ ~FN\gi .. -... ,~~of&"""""""""' -Do,<,!. ---__ ,.. ___ _ ---F-.- @ NORTH VUECREST ESTAlES PRELIMINARY PLAT l'fELll'IAAY1RAfFICcoorROL PLAN .., PRO.ECT MO 1~02 ILIU1-1[-H-H--j r s s 1, / Cl..Llk ?< C,f, A-J.,, '""' \.,-',; 9 ~ °" 1. ; ·~ '1 -••a J~~ ~ ~~ -\.. V,c ',, L f'""D \r\c\-'llu..h IISLlNDANCE ~ ,;/. /,,//, /. /,;;,?, To: The City of Renton -Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA. 98057 Attn: Elizabeth Higgins ehiggins@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6581 31 October 2014, Rev B From: David N. Rasmussen -President Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA. 98055 dr2141@yahoo.com 206-245-5475 Subject: Party of Record Notification to Vuecrest LUAB-000642, ECF, PP Development The following is to notify the City that the Sundance HOA desires to continue to be listed as a Party of Record to the Subject Vuecrest Development and to document continued areas of concern we wish to have addressed as part of the due process of Development Authorization. Sundance HOA wishes to thank the City of Renton in the findings of unacceptability of the proposal as planned due to lack of Secondary Access as proposed in the defined and recorded Plan. The project proponent has submitted a Reconsideration request of the proposed and submitted Plan. The data of record and plan in place requires and plans for a usable public secondary access road fully functional and usable by the general public and allow for emergency response access as well as allow the public secondary access to the proposed development. Sundance HOA requests that the Reconsideration request be rejected as it does not pertain to the data and plan as submitted and on record. The definition of the proposed Secondary access is on file and a matter of record and must stand as is on the evidence as submitted and on record. To ask for redefinition or modification of the plan as submitted should not be allowed or be accepted. Signed, David Rasmussen Date President -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Steve Yantorni Date Treasurer -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Rebecca Evers Date Secretary -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Cynthia Moya From: CityClerk Records Sent: To: Friday, October 31, 2014 2:14 PM Cynthia Moya; Jason Seth Subject: Attachments: FW: Sundance HOA Comments on Vuecrest Request for Reconsideration Sundance HOA Party of Record Notification RevB.docx FYI .... Sandi Weir Records Management Specialist City Clerk Office -City of Renton (425) 430-6510 phone (425) 430-6516 fax From: Elizabeth Higgins Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 1:45 PM To: Phil Olbrechts (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com); Jamie Waltier (jwaltier@harbourhomes.com); CityClerk Records Cc: 'Rasmussen, David N' Subject: FW: Sundance HOA Comments on Vuecrest Request for Reconsideration Re: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (LUAB-000642) The letter attached with this email was received today. Thank you. Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 From: Rasmussen, David N [mailto:david.n.rasmussen@boeing.com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:27 AM To: Elizabeth Higgins Subject: Sundance HOA Comments on Vuecrest Request for Reconsideration Elizabeth Higgins, Please find attached the Sundance HOA comments to be considered as Party of Record on the Subject matter pending. Thank you, 1 David N. Rasmussen President -Sundance HOA 2 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good morning Cindy, Jennifer D. Sower <jes@vnf.com> Monday, November 03, 2014 11:29 AM Cynthia Moya Brent Carson FW: Vuecrest Estates comments I sent this inquiry to Elizabeth Higgins this morning, but as she has not yet responded, so I am contacting you, as well. On behalf of Brent Carson, I need to obtain any comments made in response to the Request for Reconsideration by Persons who testified at the hearing and City staff, in the Vuecrest Estates matter. The deadline for these comments was October 31, 2014; and we have until November 5, 2014 to submit a written reply to the responses. We have already received the City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant from your office last week. Thank you for your help. Regards, Jennifer Jennifer Sower I Legal Assistant Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623~9372 I jes@vnf.com I vnf.com This communication may contain information and/or metodata that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disr::/osu,e If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read or review the content and/or metadolo and do not disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. Anyone who receivf:'s this mes.~oge in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone (202-298-1800} or by retvrn e·moil and delete it from his or her wmputer. I I \,_ 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mr. Examiner, Jason Seth Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:09 PM 'Phil Olbrechts' Jennifer T. Henning; Elizabeth Higgins; Cynthia Moya; Larry Warren Vuecrest Estates PP -Request for Reconsideration Vuecrest Request for Reconsideration.pd/ The City of Renton received a Request for Reconsideration for LUAB-000642, Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, filed by Brent Carson, Attorney for Applicant -Harbour Homes for Schneider Homes. -Jason Jason Seth, CMC Acting City Clerk jseth@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6504 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cl1Y OF RENTON OCT 16 Z014 RECEiVED CiTY CLERK'S OFFIC BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUAl3°000642 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100(0)(9) and RMC 4-8- 11 O(E)(l3), the Applicant for the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his Final Decision dated October 3, 2014 (the "Decision") with respect to the issue of secondary access. The Hearing Examiner failed to apply the correct criteria to consider the variance, which was sought under RMC 4-9-250(8). By applying the wrong criteria under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5), the Hearing Examiner reached an erroneous conclusion in his Decision and in the imposition of Condition 13. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -1 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman m 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 /'l/ t,111, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The Hearing Examiner should also reconsider his decision to accurately apply the unrefuted testimony by the Applicant's expert, Mr. Carl Anderson', demonstrating that the variance criteria was met, and in particular, that granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to public welfare. The Hearing Examiner also should grant the variance and remove Condition 13 to remedy the fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations by City staff that secondary access would not be required. Finally, in the alternative, the Hearing Examiner should revise the language in Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility to achieving secondary access in the future. II. ARGUMENT 13 A. The Hearing Examiner Should Reconsider the Decision, Apply the Correct Variance Criteria, Grant the Variance and Eliminate Condition 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The Hearing Examiner Decision mistakenly applied the street improvement modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9-250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the umefutcd evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. We ask the Hearing Examiner on reconsideration to grant the requested variance and strike Condition 13. The approval considered by the Hearing Examiner, in the matter, is for a Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated by the City of Renton under Title IV, 24 1 The Examiner also erred by failing to include as an Exhibit in the Decision, Exhibit 38, the resume of Mr. Anderson, which was offered and admitted (a copy of Exhibit 38 as submitted at the hearing is 25 attached). REQUEST FOR RECOKS1DERA TION -2 5TT22-7 I Van Ness Feldman~. 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 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 Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-1 SO(D), which imposes the requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets, which were the topic of much discussion at the public hearing and are at the crux of the secondary access issue. Thus, in a plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150. The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, including variances from the street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(8). RMC 4-7-240(A) states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)". The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B), seeking a variance from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. See Exhibit 35, Att. I. The variance application provided an analysis showing compliance with each of tbe four criteria under RMC 4-9- 250(B) including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) which states that "the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -3 57721-7 I Van Ness Feldman lU' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 {206) 623-9372 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 property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street improvement modification provisions under RMC 4-9-250(C) when a variance was sought under RMC 4-7-240(A). At the plat hearing, the witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. In particular, these witnesses established that approval of the variance would "not be materially detrimental" as provided in RMC 4-9-250(B)(S)(b). See Testimony of Mr. Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J. Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K. The Hearing Examiner erred by applying the street improvement modification standards in RMC 4-9-250(C). By applying the wrong criteria, the Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied a "no detrimental effect" standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(S)(e) to the facts in the case. See Decision at 27. The Decision acknowledges that the unrefuted testimony from the Applicant's fire expert, Mr. Carl Anderson, was that the addition of 20 lots "would not be a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." 1bis expert testimony confirms compliance with criteria RMC 4-9-250(8)(5)(b) that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. By applying the improper "no detrimental" standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e), the Hearing Examiner mistakenly concluded that Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -4 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Repeatedly, the Decision, as written, demonstrates that by applying the wrong criteria the Hearing Examiner reached the wrong conclusions in response to the Applicant's variance request. For example, the Decision states that the burden was on the Applicant to demonstrate that the single access "would be safe." Decision at 15. There is no such criterion within the context of the requested variance. The Decision likewise asserts that the burden was on the Applicant that sprinklers would reduce the fire hazard "to insignificant levels." Again, these conclusions may be appropriate under the modification criteria of "no detriment," but these conclusions are erroneous under the applicable variance criteria. The Examiner should apply the correct variance criteria and, based on the evidence in this record, grant the variance as requested and strike Condition 13. 14 B. 15 On Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner Should Give Proper Weight to the Applicant's Experts who Established that Granting the Variance Would not be Materially Detrimental to Public Welfare. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner should give proper weight to the testimony of the Applicant's experts and should discount the exaggerated and questionable testimony presented by staff. The allegation by staff of a dead end street being 2400 feet long with 99 homes on it failed to accurately describe the "on-the ground" conditions. Mr. Carl Anderson's unrefuted testimony demonstrated that only 800 feet of the roadway will have a single access because of the internal secondary access loops that are provided off of this street along its length. Mr. Anderson's testimony confirmed that, of the 99 homes that staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are on two streets, S 4 7th REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -5 S7722-7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Secon<l Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest, and of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat. These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes, led Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted. In his October 7, 2013 letter, Fire Chief Mark Peterson went on record withdrawing his August 15, 2013 letter and thereby confirming that a secondary access would not be required for this plat. There have been no changes in the plat design since the time of that October 7th letter that would provide Mr. Peterson with a basis to "reissue" his August 15th letter. In fact, Mr. Peterson has never reissued that letter. Instead, Mr. Peterson testified at the plat hearing as if his October 7, 2013 letter never existed and that he had never given his authorization on October 7th for the plat review to continue without providing a secondary access. Given Mr. Anderson's unrefuted testimony and the lack of credible testimony by staff, the Hearing Examiner should, on reconsideration, grant the variance, as requested, and strike Condition 13. 20 C. 21 The Hearing Examiner Should Grant the Variance and Remove Condition 13 to Remedy the City Staff's Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentations that a Secondary Access would not be Required. 22 23 24 25 The record in this case establishes that the City staff expressly represented to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations induced the Applicant to process this preliminary plat through the preliminary plat hearing. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA Tl ON -6 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue S u"ite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206} 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ]I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The first representations on this issue occurred during the second pre-application conference. Mr. Corey Thomas, on behalf of the Fire Department, prepared a detailed written memo dated November 13, 2012 confirming that a temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable to the Fire Department. He wrote: "Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining 1U1derdeveloped properties for future extension. It was previously decided to require a 32-foot wide street if the street grid could not be extended. If this future extension can be achieved, the required 32-foot paved street may be reduced to 28-feet of pavement. A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction requirements." Exhibit 35, Art. 8. (Emphasis added) Prior to formally submitting the preliminary plat application, the Applicant sought confirmation of the Fire Department's position that a temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable. For the second time, the Fire Department expressly represented in a January 23, 2013 email to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required: "The road section can be 28-feet if you provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at this time. A temporary 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac is acceptable also .... All homes require fire sprinkler systems .... The only way to eliminate the fire sprinklers is to complete the road connection to I 02"a right away [ . l ,, SIC. Ex. 35, Art. C. (Emphasis added) The City's senior planner, Vanessa Dolbee crystalized the City's position that a cul-de-sac would be authorized: "The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as part of the proposed development. However, without the secondary access a cul-de-sac would be required for fire tum around . . . " Id. (Emphasis added) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION· 7 57T22-7 I Van Ness Feldman,~ 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98'i04 (206) 623-9372 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 After submitting the application, and after receiving the August 15, 2013 letter from Fire Chief Peterson, which indicated that a secondary access would be required, there were detailed discussions with the City. These discussions led to the Fire Chiefs letter of October 7, 2013; a letter that withdrew his August 15th letter. The Applicant accepted the Fire Chief at his written word that, so long as the final plat design did not change, a secondary access would not be required. The Applicant relied on that letter and continued a lengthy and expensive process to answer all staff issues to bring the preliminary plat to hearing, including paying for an additional geotechnical report. Ms. Higgins testified at the hearing that the October 7th letter, informing the Applicant that a secondary access was not going to be required, was solicited by Ms. Higgins in order to induce the Applicant to continue processing the preliminary plat application. Fire Chief Peterson's testimony at the hearing indicates that he had no intention of allowing the preliminary plat to proceed without requiring a secondary access. Tragically, this was never disclosed to the Applicant until the staff report was issued in September 2014 proposing Condition 13 to require a secondary access. The Hearing Examiner should be deeply troubled by the actions of City staff in this matter and by Ms. Higgins' testimony about her soliciting Fire Chief Peterson's October 7th letter to induce the Applicant to support a secondary geotechnical study. The behavior of Ms. Higgins and the prior representations of City staff that no secondary access would be required may ultimately support a damages claim against the City by the Applicant for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. By confirming that the Fire Chief REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -8 51722-7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 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 was withdrawing his prior letter, Ms. Higgins and Chief Peterson intended for the Applicant to believe that no secondary access would be required. Yet, apparently, this was all a hoax, and Chief Peterson never intended to allow this plat to be approved without a secondary access. This hoax only came to light weeks before the preliminary plat hearing after the Applicant spent tens of thousands of dollars to reach the preliminary plat hearing. The Applicant would have ended this application a year ago bad the October 15th letter not been issued. The Examiner correctly notes in the Decision at 16 that these actions by staff strain the credibility of the City's testimony. While the Hearing Examiner may not have the authority to find fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation in this matter, the Hearing Examiner has the opportunity to avoid such future claims by the Applicant and to remedy the outrageous behavior of City staff by granting the requested variance and striking Condition 13. D. If the Variance is not Granted, The Hearing Examiner on Reconsideration should, in the Alternative, Revise Condition 13 to Provide Greater Flexibility for Secondary Access. In the event the Hearing Examiner does not agree to reconsider the standards applied to the requested variance, or applies the variance criteria but concludes that the variance should not be granted, the Applicant asks the Hearing Examiner to revise Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S. immediately to the east and to the specified intersection. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -9 57722.7 IVanNess Feldman ill 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 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 As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of 1, there is one parcel ofland (the "Easterly Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S as proposed to be built by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on Sheet 1 of 1 another parcel ofland (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B" and Tract "C" on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and 102nd Ave. SE. Secondary access might be available through that parcel. Condition 13, as currently written, reads: Smithers Ave. S. shall connect to S. 48'h Pl and be extended to the east to provide a secondary access from Main Ave. S (I 02nd Ave. SE) at its intersection with SE 186"' St. As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to a location on I 02nd Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13. On reconsideration, if Condition 13 is not deleted based upon the granting of Applicant's variance request, Condition 13 should be revised to read as follows: Prior to recording the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (102nd Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of improvements for this secondary fire truck access shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary fire access. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -10 IVanNess Feldman"' 57722-7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 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 III. CONCLUSION The Applicant was induced into proceeding with this plat application by repeated representations by City staff that no secondary access would be required. The Applicant has met its burden to obtain a variance from the secondary access standard. On remand, the Hearing Examiner should apply the variance criteria in RMC 4-9-205(B)(5), not the modification provisions in RMC 4-9-250(C), give proper weight to the Applicant's expert testimony that established compliance with these criteria, approve the variance and strike Condition 13. Dated this 16th day of October, 2014 By: --,,,<.,,L..C.-1--------- Brent REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -11 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 Preliminary Plat LUA13-000642 13 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a 15 witness herein; 16 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and 17 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: 18 1. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration; and 19 2. This Certificate of Service 20 and that on October 16, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery 21 as follows: 22 23 24 25 Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office I 055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-I [ x] Via hand delivery I Van Ness Feldmanw 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 • 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 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ x J Via email polbrechts@omwlaw.com [ x] Via email [x] Via U.S. mail lwarren@rentonwa.gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 161h day of October, 2014. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -2 I Van Ness Feldman UP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Subject: Brent Carson <brc@vnf.com> Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:10 PM Cynthia Moya Vuecrest Estates I would like to obtain a CD of the Hearing Examiner hearing on this preliminary plat, held September 11, 2014. Please let me know if you can arrange this. Brent Carson I Partner Van Ness Feldman LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, Washington 98104-1728 (206) 623-9372 I brc@vnf.com I vnf.com Thi_\ communication may contain information and/or metadata that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you ore not the intended recipient, please do not read or ff'view the content and/or metadata and do not disseminate, distribute or copy this communicatmn. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone (206-623-9372) or by return e-mail and delete 1tjrom his or her computer. 1 . - Date Reference INVOICE/REQUEST FOR PAYMENT October 8, 2014 Brent Carson VanNess Feldman, LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 Hearing Examiner Hearing (9/16/2014) Re: Vuecrest Estates (LUA-13-000642) Attached are the materials that you have requested. The costs, including any applicable tax, are as follows: Description CD Copy Postage TOTAL DUE Make checks payable to: City of Renton Attention: City Clerk Division, 7th Floor 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Charge 2.00 3.09 $ 5.09 PLEASE PLACE CHECK IN RETURN ENVELOPE ADDRESSED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT THANK YOU Cynthia Moya From: Elizabeth Higgins Sent: To: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:13 PM Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat -LUAB-000642 Please place these emails in the official file for project LUAB-000642. Thank you Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 From: Jim Condelles [mailto:iimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:24 PM To: Elizabeth Higgins Subject: RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat -LUA13-000642 Ms. Higgins, Thank you for the heads up. That is indeed very disappointing news. We will have to voice our objections once more and hope that the city attorney and fire chief are not okay with this substandard proposal. This process has been disappointing on so many levels. It is remarkable how many exceptions the city is willing to make in violation of its own rules and ordinances, in the name of development. Jim Condelles iimcond@hotmail.com From: EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov To: iimcond@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat -LUAB-000642 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 23:52:05 +0000 Mr. Condelles I apologize for the delay in responding to your question. I was at the state planning conference in Spokane last week. You will be receiving another packet of information in the mail. The project applicant submitted a "Reconsideration Request" to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner, in turn, issued a notification to the Parties of Record and others that he will entertain comments on the request. 1 ... Regarding condition #13 of the Hea :aminer's decision, the applicant in thei ,nsideration request has asked that the second access be for emergency vehicles only (not built to public street standards so that residents of the development could use the road) and that it not be required to connect with Main St at its intersection with SE 186'h. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 From: Jim Condelles [mailto:jimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:07 AM To: Elizabeth Higgins Subject: RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat -LUA13-000642 Hi Ms. Higgins, Our residents at the Reserve at Stonehaven HOA received the determination on this recently --a packet of info in the mail. I just want to confirm for our information that while the examiner found no environmental reasons to stop the development, the stipulation that there needs to be a second access road has, in effect, stopped the development. Is that a correct assessment? Jim Condelles jimcond@hotmail.com 2 Denis Law Mayor October 23, 2014 Brent Carson Van Ness Feld man 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant on Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Carson: Attached is your copy of the City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant dated October 22, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. l.fl;o i=ern.-". Seth cting Deputy City Clerk Enc.: City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant cc: Hearing Examiner Elizabeth Higgins, Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Divis.ion Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Maher Joudi, DR Strong Consulting Eng. Parties of Record (46) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 !.2 13 H 15 17 18 19 2 Cl 22 23 24 25 CITY OF RENTON OCT 22 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat LUA13-000642 CITY'S ANSWER ON RECONSIDERATION REQUEST BY APPLICANT INTRODUCTION This Vuecrest Plat application primarily revolves around a dispute as to whether on extra-long, dead end street should be allowed. The Examiner decided that it should not be allowed. The Request for Reconsideration (Reconsideration) raises three basic points, each of which is without merit. The Examiner should refuse to reconsider his decision, except to rephrase Condition 13. ARGUMENT The three points will be rephrased as responses to the Reconsideration. 1. The Examiner used the Correct Criteria in Denying the Waiver. The Reconsideration argues that the Examiner erred in denying a Waiver under RMC 4-9-250.C.5, and that the Examiner should have used the variance procedure under City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -1 ORIGINAL Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 430-6498 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L 12 13 15 16 17 cs 19 20 21 22 2J 24 25 RMC 4-9-250.B. However, variances are applicable to only certain land use regulations 4-9-250 8.1, none of which are street standards. This point was made in the Examiner's decision footnote 3 at page 27. But even if there was a variance available both waiver and variance criteria require a finding that there will be no detriment to the public welfare, 4-9-250.B.5.b for variances and 4-9-250.C.5.e for waiver, a fact that was not established by the Applicant. The Reconsideration also refers to the "modification provisions "(page 4 at line 3 citing to 4-9-250. C.) but modification is dealt with in subsection 4-8-250.D, again noted in Examiner decision in footnote 3 at page 27, as unavailing and requires a finding that public safety is met. 2. The Examiner Should Not Give Greater Weight to Testimony of the Applicant's Expert than that of the Fire Chief. The Reconsideration incorrectly states, in several spots, that there is unrefuted testimony that the variance criteria had been met, (page 2, line 2; page 5, line 21}. These assertions, of necessity, emphasize testimony about lack of detriment to public welfare. They were, of course, refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson about concerns of greater response time and potentially blocked access in case of fire or natural disaster, summarized in the Examiner's decision at page 8. In fact, Chief Peterson's early opposition to this plat was recently reinforced by a wildfire, in the city, that blocked egress for citizens from their homes down a long, dead end access road. (Examiner's decision pg. 8) Further, the City has a strongly stated policy against long, dead end roads expressed in RMC 4-6-060.H. The policy is clear under RMC 4-6-060.H.2 that any dead end street over 700 feet in length requires two mean ¥C and fire sprinklers for all City's Answer to Applicant's G"'~· .. _),-¢, Renton City Attorney Request for Reconsideration -2 "" + 1055 South Grady Way + ..11 Renton, WA 98057-3232 ~ -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 "Ji; N'fo Fax: (425) 430-6498 1 3 4 5 6 7 2 9 lC 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 houses beyond 500 feet. The only exception to that policy is for waiver of the turnaround to be granted by the CED Administrator with approval of the Fire & Emergency Services. There is no provision for waiver of the limitations of the length of the dead end street. There is also no room for an expert witness to argue that the policy, so clearly enunciated, can be ignored because in the expert's opinion "there would be no material detriment to public safety." (Reconsideration, pg. 6, lines 6, 7). That opinion not only contradicts City policy but also recent experience from the wildfire. It is also refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson, one of the City Administrators charged with enforcing and interpreting the code section in question. There is also no reason shown in the Reconsideration why the Examiner should change his opinion that Chief Peterson's testimony was more persuasive than the expert, Mr. Anderson. The failure to state a reason to re-examine credibility alone, should be enough to carry the day for the City. 3. Public Safety Should Not be Compromised by Changing Staff Positions. The essence of this dead end road conflict is public safety. The Examiner is asked, because of conflicting staff messages, to ignore public safety, City policy and State policy and grant a waiver of code that limits the length of the dead end street. The Examiner is asked to ignore by implication, RCW 58.17.110(1) (a) that each plat to be approved, must provide appropriate streets and RCW 58.17.110(1) (b) that the plat would be in the public interest. The Examiner is without jurisdiction to do. The Reconsideration advances an estoppel argument without so stating. That is unsurprising because estoppel generally does not run against the State or its City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -3 ~y 0 ()~~> Renton City Attorney .2.m + 1055 South Grady Way + ~ Renton, WA 98057-3232 -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ~-(S,NcfO Fax: (425) 430-6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 lJ 15 16 17 l 8 20 2'- 22 23 24 25 subdivisions, such as the City. Estate of Hambelton v. Department of Revenue_ Wn.2d. __ (October, 2014). Estoppel is even more inappropriate if public safety is clearly implicated, as in this case. Applicant can hardly act surprised by Chief Peterson's position. He opposed the plat by letter dated August 15, 2013, and only conditionally withdrew it by letter dated October 7, 2013. He did not state that he would approve the road length if the plat stayed the same. And, subsequently, the Chief's fears were vindicated not only by a wildfire incident in the City but undoubtedly by the 050 landslide. And, applicant knew by State law and City code that approval of the extra length dead end road was not within the power of the mid-level staff. The ultimate approval had to come from the Examiner and the Examiner's authority could not be fettered by staff statements. And Applicant should have been aware that any variance, waiver or modification of the road length had to be granted by the CED Administrator in consultation with the Fire and Emergency Services or the Examiner, as the case may be. No statement of mid-level staff can remove the authority of the Examiner and City Administrators to make decisions about this dead end road and the plat itself. The Reconsideration does acknowledge that the applicant was on notice of Chief Peterson's opposition to the extra-long, dead end street. But it does not acknowledge that the platting process often involves opposition on one or more aspects of the plat that are ultimately resolved. And such was the case here. Concerns about drainage and set-backs from steep slopes were resolved. The applicant doesn't claim to be na"ive about the give and take of the process. This preliminary plat has been City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -4 ~y 0 (.;'-.~;,¢; Renton City Attorney ~ + 1055 South Grady Way + ~ Renton, WA 98057-3232 "? -K Phone: (425) 430-6480 ~>N'tO Fax: (425) 430-6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J1 ~2 1 3 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approved in all respects, with conditions. Once the condition of providing a secondary means of access has been met the plat may proceed. It may not be timely today, but may be tomorrow. MODIFIED CONDITION 13 The City agrees that Condition 13 can be modified to provide the applicant with more flexibility in providing a secondary means of access. But, that condition should not be limited to access by fire and emergency services vehicles only; it should also state that the secondary access must be a fully improved road section so that it would provide an acceptable road surface for egress for citizens in an emergency. Otherwise, the road will never be built to standards as the "final link" development will have legal access to developed City streets that are nearby and will not trigger the City's dead end road limitations and thus would not require the later developer to bring Applicants secondary means of access to City standards. There would remain, only an emergency access road, not a completed standard street section. Alternatively, if the Examiner is not willing to modify the conditions as proposed, then the original condition should remain. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Reconsideration should be denied, but Condition 13 modified as stated above. ' ' c-P DATED THIS sJ;J-day of October, 2014. City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -5 Denis Law Mayor October 21, 2014 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Order Authorizing Reconsideration for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Carson: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Order Authorizing Reconsideration dated October 21, 2014, along with your Request for Reconsideration dated October 16, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, /f « s;,'25 ~:Seth Acting Deputy City Clerk Enc.: HEX's Order Authorizing Reconsideration Carson's Request for Reconsideration cc: Hearing Examiner Elizabeth Higgins, Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember · Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Maher Joudi, DR Strong Consulting Eng. Parties of Record (46) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov ,. I I I. All31\'o'·O!l-008-! WOl"AlaAl!"MMM Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 William & Stephanie Struyk 4 707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 T @09~S @AH:11\Y \!l ( )Wdn-dod p.1oqai ar Jal~A~.1 I ap uye am1pe4 e1 , zanday Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S, LlDl Renton, WA 98055 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murrav Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98121 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 lUawa6.1e4:> ap suas ... Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 r w:i.a6p3 dn•dOd asodxa ! Ol aun 6uo1e puaa ' ( I I I @0915 @All31W +!Jeqe6 "I zas111m Ja1ad ~ sa1pei sa»anb!+~ uloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Nancy Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Soerber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNED Ct S RENTON, WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4 706 Snowgrass Dr Olympia, WA 98516 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle, WA 98103 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct s Renton, WA 98055-7328 Sandeeo Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 r I I I @09 (S aie1dwa1 @/iJaNtt asn s1aqe1 ®l""d Ase3 T I I I • All3/\lf·09-008·! WO)".ti8AlrMMM Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave 5 RENTON. WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl 5 Renton, WA 98055-8355 Ltanva Terrell Jones 4769 Morris Ave 5, Unit 5302 Renton, WA 98055-6374 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave 5 Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeeo Natt 866 5 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 ! @09is @AH:11\V @ r ),idn-dOd p.aoqaJ aJ JaJ~A~J I ap U!Je a.m1.peq e1 ~ H!JdaH anh & Chi Le 903 5 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Tammv & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Ave 5 Renton. WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 5 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lvnn Sebring 4 706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 iuawa6Je4:> ap suas T f' w.1,.a6p:1 dn-dOc;f asodxa : Ol aun 6uo1e puae _ JadedpaaJ I -'I' ( I I I @09!5 @All3/\lf i1,eqe6 a1 zas11!rn ,a1ad ~ sa1pe! sai+anb!,~ . -Rer Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl 5 Renton. WA 98055-8359 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct 5 Renton. WA 98055-7328 Ginnv Knox 4901 Morris Ave 5, #55202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Owen Reese 342162nd Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 r I I I @091S aie1dwa1 ®f.JaA'if asn s1aqe, @l""d A:se3 / .. " 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat LUA! 3-000642 ) ) ) ORDER AUTHORIZING ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ~----------------) The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned matter. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration before a decision on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request. The Applicant seeks reconsideration of its denial of a variance request to the requirements of RMC 4-6- 060, which prohibits the Applicant's proposed dead end street. The Applicant raises a challenging reconsideration issue, because there are three different sets of variance/modification/waiver' criteria that each arguably apply to the proposed dead end street. The Applicant argues that the variance criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply. City staff, in the staff report, asserts that the request is a "modification", which would require application of the RMC 4-9-250(D) criteria. The final decision employed the street "waiver" criteria ofRMC 4-9-250(C). 1 For those not familiar with Rcnton's v.rriance/modification/waivcr standards, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) allows for the "v.rriance" of zoning standards identified in RMC 4-9-250(B)(l) and other standards in the RMC that expressly authorize application of RMC 4-9-250(C). RMC 4-9-250(C) allows for the "waiver" of street improvements. RMC 4-9-250(D) allows for "modification" of"standards", apparently those standards not subject to the v.rriance or street waiver process. The Applicant's reconsideration request presents the issue of which of these three types of review processes apply-variance, waiver or modification? Reconsideration -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 The weak point in the Applicant's position is that the RMC 4-9-250(C) criteria only applies ifRMC 4-6- 060 is considered a requirement of Chapter 4-7 RMC. RMC 4-7-240(A) provides that the criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to "the requirements of this Chapter [Chapter 4.7 RMC]". Of course, RMC 4- 6-060 is a part of Chapter 4-6 RMC. The Applicant notes that RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance with RMC 4-6-060. Through this cross-reference, the Applicant argues that RMC 4-6-060 should be considered a part of Chapter 4-7 RMC. The Applicant's interpretation raises some troubling issues, notably: 1. For the reasons outlined in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision, the variance criteria advocated by the Applicant would not apply if RMC 4-6-060 were not considered a part of Chapter 4. 7 RMC. This means that a dead end road built as part of a subdivision would be subject to variance criteria while the waiver criteria would apply for the same dead end street proposed as part of another type of development proposal. For example, under the Applicant's interpretation the RMC 4-9-250(C) variance criteria would apply to its proposed dead end since it's part of a subdivision, but if the exact same street configuration were proposed as part of a college campus or apartment complex, the modification criteria ofRMC 4-9-250(C) would apply instead. Why would the City Council intend that a different safety standard (as applied in the variance/waiver criteria) apply to the same dead end street simply because it's part of a subdivision as opposed to another type of development project? 2. Street waiver criteria, RMC 4-9-250(C), are precisely designed to address the unique circumstances applicable to street improvements. Why would the City Council intend to forego these specifically applicable waiver standards for the generic variance standards of RMC 4-9-250(B) because a street was proposed as part of a subdivision? 3. Subdivision review is subject to numerous development standards that arc not cross- referenced in Chapter 4.7 RMC, such as zoning bulk and dimensional standards2 and drainage standards. Why would the City Council intend applicable variance criteria to differ depending on whether or not a development standard is cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7 RMC? A response from the City on the issues raised above would be of particular value, due to the City's extensive experience in the adoption and application of the numerous variance/waiver/modification criteria in RMC 4-9-250. The City is also requested to explain why it chose to apply the modification criteria as opposed to the waiver criteria. The applicability of the modification criteria as opposed to the waiver criteria is already addressed to some extent in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision. Further, if the issue of which variance/modification/wavier criteria applies has been contested in past examiner proceedings, it would be useful for staff to submit copies of the examiner decisions resolving those issues. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 2 Some, but not all, bulk and dimensional standards are expressly subject to RMC 4-9.250(8) criteria and therefore don't have to be cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7 RMC for RMC 4-9-250(8) to apply. See RMC 4-9-250(8)(1 ). Reconsideration -2 ' . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, October 31, 2014 to provide written comments in response to the request for reconsideration submitted by the Applicant, dated October 16, 2014. The Applicant shall have until November 5, 2014 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses authorized in the preceding paragraph. 3. All written comments authorized above may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw(a),grnail.com and Elizabeth Higgins at EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. 4. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding, held on September 11, 2014. Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's request for reconsideration. DATED this 21st day of October, 2014. --)( c (' (__.,2.-~ P1i'ifi... 011m...,h;, . City of Renton Hearing Examiner Reconsideration -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY OF ~ENTON OCT 1 6 2014 RECeiVED ,: JI!_. CITY CLERK'S OFFIC l/tr /~ fr:·/ {c.: · BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUA! 3-000642 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-IOO(G)(9) and RMC 4-8- 11 O(E)(l 3), the Applicant for the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his Final Decision dated October 3, 2014 (the "Decision") with respect to the issue of secondary access. The Hearing Examiner failed to apply the correct criteria to consider the variance, which was sought under RMC 4-9-250(8). By applying the wrong criteria under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5), the Hearing Examiner reached an erroneous conclusion in his Decision and in the imposition of Condition 13. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -I ~7722-7 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The Hearing Examiner should also reconsider his decision to accurately apply the unrefuted testimony by the Applicant's expert, Mr. Carl Anderson', demonstrating that the variance criteria was met, and in particular, that granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to public welfare. The Hearing Examiner also should grant the variance and remove Condition 13 to remedy the fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations by City staff that secondary access would not be required. Finally, in the alternative, the Hearing Examiner should revise the language in Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility to achieving secondary access in the future. II. ARGUMENT 13 A. The Hearing Examiner Should Reconsider the Decision, Apply the Correct Variance Criteria, Grant the Variance and Eliminate Condition 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The Hearing Examiner Decision mistakenly applied the street improvement modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9-250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the unrefuted evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. We ask the Hearing Examiner on reconsideration to grant the requested variance and strike Condition 13. The approval considered by the Hearing Examiner, in the matter, is for a Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated by the City of Renton under Title IV, 24 1 The Examiner also erred by failing to include as an Exhibit in the Decision, Exhibit 38, the resume of Mr. Anderson, which was offered and admitted (a copy of Exhibit 38 as submitted at the hearing is 25 attached). REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -2 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-150(0), which imposes the requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets, which were the topic of much discussion at the public hearing and are at the crux of the secondary access issue. Thus, in a plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150. The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, including variances from the street standards. Sec RMC 4-7-240( 1 ). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(8). RMC 4-7-240(A) states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(8)". The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(8), seeking a variance from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. See Exhibit 35, Alt. I. The variance application provided an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9- 250(8) including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(8)(5)(b) which states that "the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -3 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street improvement modification provisions under RMC 4-9-250(C) when a variance was sought under RMC 4-7-240(A). At the plat hearing, the witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. In particular, these witnesses established that approval of the variance would "not be materially detrimental" as provided in RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). See Testimony of Mr. Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J. Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K. The Hearing Examiner erred by applying the street improvement modification standards in RMC 4-9-250(C). By applying the wrong criteria, the Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied a "no detrimental effect" standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) to the facts in the case. Sec Decision at 27. The Decision acknowledges that the unrefuted testimony from the Applicant's fire expert, Mr. Carl Anderson, was that the addition of 20 lots "would not be a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." This expert testimony confirms compliance with criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. By applying the improper "no detrimental" standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e), the Hearing Examiner mistakenly concluded that Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -4 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Repeatedly, the Decision, as written, demonstrates that by applying the wrong criteria the Hearing Examiner reached the wrong conclusions in response to the Applicant's variance request. For example, the Decision states that the burden was on the Applicant to demonstrate that the single access "would be safe." Decision at 15. There is no such criterion within the context of the requested variance. The Decision likewise asserts that the burden was on the Applicant that sprinklers would reduce the fire hazard "to insignificant levels." Again, these conclusions may be appropriate under the modification criteria of"no detriment," but these conclusions are erroneous under the applicable variance criteria. The Examiner should apply the correct variance criteria and, based on the evidence in this record, grant the variance as requested and strike Condition 13. 14 B. 15 On Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner Should Give Proper Weight to the Applicant's Experts who Established that Granting the Variance Would not be Materially Detrimental to Public Welfare. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner should give proper weight to the testimony of the Applicant's experts and should discount the exaggerated and questionable testimony presented by staff The allegation by staff of a dead end street being 2400 feet long with 99 homes on it failed to accurately describe the "on-the ground" conditions. Mr. Carl Anderson's unrefuted testimony demonstrated that only 800 feet of the roadway will have a single access because of the internal secondary access loops that are provided off of this street along its length. Mr. Anderson's testimony confirmed that, of the 99 homes that staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are on two streets, S 4 7'h REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -5 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman·" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest, and of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat. These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklcring these homes, Jed Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted. In his October 7, 2013 letter, Fire Chief Mark Peterson went on record withdrawing his Au1,>ust 15, 2013 letter and thereby confirming that a secondary access would not be required for this plat. There have been no changes in the plat design since the time of that October 7'h letter that would provide Mr. Peterson with a basis to "reissue" his August J 5'h letter. In fact, Mr. Peterson has never reissued that letter. Instead, Mr. Peterson testified at the plat hearing as ifhis October 7, 2013 letter never existed and that he had never given his authorization on October 7th for the plat review to continue without providing a secondary access. Given Mr. Anderson's unrefuted testimony and the lack of credible testimony by staff, the Hearing Examiner should, on reconsideration, grant the variance, as requested, and strike Condition 13. 20 C. The Hearing Examiner Should Grant the Variance and Remove Condition 13 to Remedy the City StafPs Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentations that a Secondary Access would not be Required. 21 22 23 24 25 The record in this case establishes that the City staff expressly represented to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations induced the Applicant to process this preliminary plat through the preliminary plat hearing. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -6 57722-i I Van Ness Feldman", 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The first representations on this issue occurred during the second pre-application conference. Mr. Corey Thomas, on behalf of the Fire Department, prepared a detailed written memo dated November 13, 2012 confirming that a temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable to the Fire Department. He wrote: "Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. It was previously decided to require a 32-foot wide street if the street grid could not be extended. If this future extension can be achieved, the required 32-foot paved street may be reduced to 28-feet of pavement. A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction requirements." Exhibit 35, Att. B. (Emphasis added) Prior to formally submitting the preliminary plat application, the Applicant sought confirmation oftbe Fire Department's position that a temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable. For the second time, the Fire Department expressly represented in a January 23, 2013 email to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required: "The road section can be 28-feet if you provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at this time. A temporary 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac is acceptable also .... All homes require fire sprinkler systems .... The only way to eliminate the fire sprinklers is to complete the road connection to 10211 d right away [sic]." Ex. 35, Att. C. (Emphasis added) The City's senior planner, Vanessa Dolbee crystalized the City's position that a cul-de-sac would be authorized: "The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as part of the proposed development. However, without the secondary access a cul-de-sac would be required for fire turn around . . . " Id. (Emphasis added) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -7 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 After submitting the application, and after receiving the August 15, 2013 letter from Fire Chief Peterson, which indicated that a secondary access would be required, there were detailed discussions with the City. These discussions led to the Fire Chiefs letter of October 7, 2013; a letter that withdrew his August 15th letter. The Applicant accepted the Fire Chief at his written word that, so long as the final plat design did not change, a secondary access would not be required. The Applicant relied on that letter and continued a lengthy and expensive process to answer all staff issues to bring the preliminary plat to hearing, including paying for an additional geotechnical report. Ms. Higgins testified at the hearing that the October 7th letter, informing the Applicant that a secondary access was not going to be required, was solicited by Ms. Higgins in order to induce the Applicant to continue processing the preliminary plat application. Fire Chief Peterson's testimony at the hearing indicates that he had no intention of allowing the preliminary plat to proceed without requiring a secondary access. Tragically, this was never disclosed to the Applicant until the staff report was issued in September 2014 proposing Condition 13 to require a secondary access. The Hearing Examiner should be deeply troubled by the actions of City staff in this matter and by Ms. Higgins' testimony about her soliciting Fire Chief Peterson's October 7th letter to induce the Applicant to support a secondary geotechnical study. The behavior of Ms. Higgins and the prior representations of City staff that no secondary access would be required may ultimately support a damages claim against the City by the Applicant for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. By confirming that the Fire Chief REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -8 5T!2l-7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was withdrawing his prior letter, Ms. Higgins and Chief Peterson intended for the Applicant to believe that no secondary access would be required. Yet, apparently, this was all a hoax, and Chief Peterson never intended to allow this plat to be approved without a secondary access. This hoax only came to light weeks before the preliminary plat hearing after the Applicant spent tens of thousands of dollars to reach the preliminary plat hearing. The Applicant would have ended this application a year ago had the October J 5'h letter not been issued. The Examiner correctly notes in the Decision at 16 that these actions by staff strain the credibility of the City's testimony. While the Hearing Examiner may not have the authority to find fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation in this matter, the Hearing Examiner has the opportunity to avoid such future claims by the Applicant and to remedy the outrageous behavior of City staff by granting the requested variance and striking Condition 13. D. If the Variance is not Granted, The Hearing Examiner on Reconsideration should, in the Alternative, Revise Condition 13 to Provide Greater Flexibility for Secondary Access. In the event the Hearing Examiner does not agree to reconsider the standards applied to the requested variance, or applies the variance criteria but concludes that the variance should not be granted, the Applicant asks the Hearing Examiner to revise Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S. immediately to the cast and to the specified intersection. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -9 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of 1, there is one parcel ofland (the "Easterly Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S as proposed to be built by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Walticr testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on Sheet 1 of 1 another parcel ofland (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B" and Tract "C" on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and 102n" Ave. SE. Secondary access might be available through that parcel. Condition 13, as currently written, reads: Smithers Ave. S. shall connect to S. 481h Pl and be extended to the east to provide a secondary access from Main Ave. S (102nd Ave. SF) at its intersection with SE 1861h St. As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to a location on I 02nd Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13. On reconsideration, if Condition 13 is not deleted based upon the granting of Applicant's variance request, Condition 13 should be revised to read as follows: Prior to recording the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (102"d Ave. SE) to the plat by_fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of improvements for this secondary/ire truck access shall be determined by the City a/Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary.fire access. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -10 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 III. CONCLUSION The Applicant was induced into proceeding with this plat application by repeated representations by City staff that no secondary access would be required. The Applicant has met its burden to obtain a variance from the secondary access standard. On remand, the Hearing Examiner should apply the variance criteria in RMC 4-9-205(8)(5), not the modification provisions in RMC 4-9-250(C), give proper weight to the Applicant's expert testimony that established compliance with these criteria, approve the variance and strike Condition 13. Dated this 16 1h day of October, 2014 By: :__-,L,,L....::.:__/-------- Brent REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -11 57722-7 I Van Ness Feldman,~ 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 Preliminary Plat LUA 13-000642 13 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a 15 witness herein; 16 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and 17 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: 18 I. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration; and 19 2. This Certificate of Service 20 and that on October 16, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery 21 as follows: 22 23 24 25 Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -1 [x] Via hand delivery I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ x] Via email polbrechts(lvomwlaw.com [x] Via email [x] Via U.S. mail l warren(aJrentonwa. gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this l 6'h day of October, 2014. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -2 I Van Ness Feldman cce 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 Hearing Examiner's Decision Denis Law Mayor ·····-····· . .· . Cityof 1 ·. _ . r ·. p;·r r ~. :·c r \; ~''} J. ~.,,.l;J.~ .. October 3, 2014 Maher Joudi DR Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7'h Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Final Decision for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Joudi: City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated October 3, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ,{liJ n A. Seth Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Elizabeth Higgins, Planner Jennifer Henning 1 Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (45) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov ' I I I Alt3 Ml·09·008· L WO)'I.J.i3Ae·MMM Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 5 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 ! @09L5 @AlJ3/"f ~ r )wdn•dOcf pJoqaJ Elf Ji:l!~A~J 1 ap uy.e aJnLfJE'lj e1 ~ za!!daH snim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl 5, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle. WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4 717 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murrav Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle. WA 98121 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 :i.u~wa61e4:> ap suas T Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 r vaa6p3 dn-dOd ~sodxa N aU!J 6uo1e puag r @09L5 @All3/\'I>' l!'"q"6 <>t Z<>S<iiln .1a1ad ~ sa1pe1 sauanbri~ ria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Nancy Osborn 4635 Morris Ave 5, #F Renton. WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 5 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNETT Ct S RENTON. WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4706 Snowgrass Dr Olympia, WA 98516 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle. WA 98103 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Sandeeo Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 , /~' ; 11 "°' c 1 j / @09~5 ale1dw::;,1 &/.raA't;/ asn '>1rlni::o, _ 1;::i.:i-...1 /ic:.1;,3 T I I I Al:l3Alf·09·008·l WOYIU9/\2'MMM Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis · ~ 4767 Whit~-ff"S Re/ 98055-8355 Ltanya Terrell Jones 4769 Morris Aves, Unit 5302 Renton. WA 98055-6374 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 r Jwdn-do,:1 p.,oqaJ ao1 Jcl,~l\~J r ap U!Je am4Je4 E'f I! za11dau ,anh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Tammy & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Aves Renton. WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lynn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 f ,1ua6p3 dn"dOd asodxe : Ol ilUH 6uo1e PUVR 4,u;;,w06Je4:i, ap suas " r I @0915 @Al:l3AV ,ueqe6 a1 zasi11,n ,a1ad ~ sa1oeJ sauanb!,~ "oger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl s Renton, WA 98055-8359 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #55202 Renton. WA 98055-8398 Owen Reese 3421 62nd Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 @09LS a1e1dwa1 rg/ual't'rf ~sn ,;·1aa~"1 _1,,1~..1 i::i:;.p::1 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat LUAJ3-000642 ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) _________________ ) SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval, street improvement waiver and possibly a critical area exemption for a 20-lot residential subdivision. The street wavier is to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. The critical area exemption is for placing a drainage line across the face of a steep slope. The preliminary plat is approved. The street improvement waiver is not approved. The applicant was unable to establish that the street waiver would not result in an unsafe fire response condition for residents of the proposed subdivision. The critical area exemption is not considered to be consolidated with the preliminary plat and street modifications of this proposal. The staff report at no point identifies the exemption as consolidated with the preliminary plat application. The proposal summary makes no mention of the critical area exemption. However, Page 17 of the staff report recommends approval of a critical areas exemption, suggesting that consolidation was intended. If the exemption was intended to be consolidated with the preliminary plat application, there is insufficient information in the record to assess its merits. RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(d)(iv) requires a geotechnical report to be prepared that assesses compliance with the exemption criteria and to also propose mitigation. No reference to any such report is made in the staff report and no such geotechnical report could be found in the administrative record. Impacts of the proposed stormwater vault and retaining walls are assessed in the geotechnical reports, but nothing else in the geotechnical reports could be found that specifically addressed the drainage line or the exemption criteria. Given the absence of this needed information and the fact PRELIMINARY PLAT-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 26 that the staff report does not clearly identify the administrative exemption decision as consolidated for hearing examiner review, the exemption decision will not be considered as consolidated with the preliminary plat and street improvement modification request. TESTIMONY Staff Testimony Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton Ms. Higgins described the project as a proposed 20 lot single family development in South Renton. The original application had 21 lots, but was subsequently revised to 20 lots. The proposal as submitted generally meets the Renton municipal code with the exception of street standards relating to access. The applicant has submitted a request for a street modification. There are environmentally sensitive areas on or near the property and critical areas regulations apply. The project conforms to the critical areas code. The 9.3 acre site is south of Carr Road and east of Talbot Road in south Renton. The project is in an area of residential development with various densities. To the east are condos at higher density. To the south and southeast are lower density residential developments. Densities to the north and northeast are consistent with the project. The project was originally an undeveloped portion of an existing condo development. The site is isolated from the condos by a steep slope. The project was submitted in 2013 but was placed on hold for additional geotechnical reports due to concerns about the slope. Three separate geotechnical reports were submitted by three individual firms. New notification was sent out. The Environmental Review Committee added six additional conditions of approval. No appeals were filed. The site has protected slopes on the west side. Slopes are 45 degrees or more. The site plan was revised to eliminate a rockery retaining wall on the top of the slope and storm water facilities were moved farther away from the slope. The project will have a I 0-foot No Disturb area on the top of the slope. There are wetlands on site. The depression wetlands are Category II wetlands. These require a 50 foot buffer. The project proposes to do buffer averaging. Properties adjacent to the project will be included in the buffer. Up to 50% of the buffer width will be reduced in places. The north wetland abuts a portion of the wetland that is part of the Stonehaven wetland reserve. Stream studies indicate there is a stream that is nearby, but not within the project site. The water collects across the subject property but the stream is not on it. The property was vacant except for a temporary cul de sac. The property has a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The Applicant submitted a tree PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 replacement plan. There are IO I significant trees on the property. These are trees measuring 6" in diameter. 54 trees will be removed for streets and alleys. There are be 120 trees in critical areas buffers, all will be retained. 42 of the significant trees will be retained. 23 significant trees must be replaced with 140 2" trees. All of the new trees will be planted in Tract C. The site has three different zoning classifications. They are R-14, a medium density residential development near the condos, an R-1 zone, a low density designation in the sloped area, and 6.06 acres of R-8 in the upper portion. The 20 lots are in the R-6 zone. After deduction for critical areas and roadways there are 4.57 developable acres. With 20 lots the resultant density is 4.23 du/acre, which is above the 4 du/acre minimum. There will be 20 single family residential lots of 4,500sf to 8,000sf. Tract A is a stormwater tract. Tracts B and E are wetlands tracts. Tract C is the tree replacement area. Tract D is an open space tract. Tract F is a Native Growth Protection Area on the slope. There will be an alley to provide rear access to abutting lots. Staff recommends formation of a homeowners association to have equal undivided ownership of the tracts, alley and private road. Another recommended condition of approval (Staff Report #9) lots 17- 20 would provide easements to other lots to allow alley to provide through access. With respect to access, Applicant has requested a modification to street standards. Renton requires a secondary access when primary access is a dead end street over 700 feet in length. Staff does not support the modification request because it does not meet the test that there is no physical way a second access can be achieved. There are no physical constraints that cannot be overcome. They believe the second access is possible. They recommend a condition of approval requiring construction of a second access prior to recording of the final plat. A portion of the project is included in the Talbot Urban Separator which imposes requirements for development. With a single exception, these requirements don't apply because the project does not propose development within the Urban Separator. This exception is the drainage facility which will extend from the top of the slope through the Urban Separator. Vegetation removed during installation of the storm water conveyance system must be replaced. With respect to drainage, the stormwater system has been revised from the original plan to minimize the impact to the critical slope. Discharge from the stormwater vault will be within a closed 12" pipe down the slope. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a stormwater easement. The project meets compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, if the required conditions of approval are met. Staff recommends the Applicant submit a detailed landscape plan. The project complies with the critical areas regulations if the conditions of approval from Environmental Review Committee are met. With the exception of the street requirement, the project meets the requirements of the subdivision code and the Talbot Urban Separator. In terms of public services (police, fire, parks, schools), resources are available to provide services to the property. Students would need to be bussed to school. There are sidewalks available for safe walking routes to bus stops. A certificate of water availability would be required by the Soos Creek PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 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 Water District. A stormwater easement is required to demonstrate that downstream systems would be available. Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions. In response to a question by the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Higgins stated the Applicant would have to negotiate an agreement with adjacent property owners to acquire an access easement or purchase land. The Applicant does not own the property the City will require for secondary access. Staff stated they would not allow the Applicant to record the final plat without this secondary access, in the event the Applicant was unable to purchase the adjacent property or acquire an easement. Applicant Testimony Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers, Applicant's Agent Mr. Jouei thanked Staff for the thorough review of the project. The Applicant concurs with the majority of the report with the exception of the secondary access. Public Testimony Owen Reese Mr. Reese is a civil engineer with Aspect Consulting. He is representing the Campen Springs Condo Association. He was hired to review the proposed development. Harbor homes approached the Condo Association with respect to the stormwater lines. The Condo Association is on the downside of the steep slope to west of the proposed development. The Condo Association had questions about stormwater management and protection of the steep slope. Harbor Homes and their agents have been very open and helpful. The Condo Association issued a Jetter of intent to allow an easement for stormwater lines. The Condo Association and Harbor Homes are working together cooperatively. The Condo Association has identified several minor issues along the western line of lots. Harbor Homes has been very responsive. The Condo Association is providing testimony today to allow Staff and the Hearing Examiner to hear their issues. There are no current retaining walls proposed. The Condo Association is requesting the City to allow only engineered retaining walls to be constructed on the proposed development, rather than just erosion control structures. They further request any new fill should be free draining structural fill and not native soils. The native soils will not provide the needed results with respect to drainage. The back yards of western lots slope towards the steep slope. At one point there was a proposed interceptor trench. The Condo Association requests the City require Harbor Homes to minimize the extent of the western Jot that drains to the slope. Whatever does drain there, please make sure it does so in a dispersed manner. The stormwater tight line should be designed using sound engineering practices in a straight line PRELIMINARY PLAT-4 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 with high density plastic. The Condo Association is requesting anchors along only the top and bottom of the pipe rather than along the whole length as the City recommended. This will keep the pipe in place even if the slope moves. The anchors should be designed to allow for tree fall and soil movement. The water should be slowed down before entering the Condo Association property. The pipeline should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up hill. An engineering geologist from Aspect Consulting reviewed the site. With respect to the ephemeral stream, the stream is in a well-defined channel outside the wetlands and then disperses down the slope, depositing sediment on the downhill side in an alluvial fan. This stream is prone to movement. The concern is that if the stream changes its channel, it may deliver sediment downstream and overwhelm the Campen Springs stormwater system. The Condo Association is asking Harbor Homes to monitor the stream and create a more defined channel. In response to questioning from the examiner, Mr. Reese responded that the proposal will not exacerbate the condition of the stream. Eric Hanson Mr. Hanson testified he understands Vuecrest will be developed. He believes the existing proposal is not consistent with the character of the area or Renton. He stated this proposal should be denied for two reasons. The first reason is because of the variance to extend Smithers Road to another dead end. The second reason is he feels the proposal gives only meager concessions to critical areas. Mr. Hanson noted the Renton municipal code requiring a secondary access. He stated the road is needed for emergency services and traffic flow. He supports the Staff requirement for secondary access. He does not feel mitigation is adequate because the road is 2,400 feet from the main arterial, more than three times farther than code requirements. He stated the deviation is major. He is not surprised the Renton Fire Department and Community Development staff docs not support the deviation. He stated the traffic will double or triple on local streets due to the proposed development. He is concerned about pedestrian safety. There are no engineering or geographical reasons for the variance. The only reason is that the Applicant docs not own the adjacent property. Mr. Hanson's second concern is environmental sensitivity. The project has steep slopes, a wetland and a stream. He stated the environmental review identified 401 significant trees. Removal of the trees would create erosion and slide risks. The existing vegetation also sustains deer in the area. The proposed mitigation for the trees is not sufficient. Only 65 trees would be replaced or retained. The emphasis should be on retaining the trees rather than replacing them with less robust trees. He acknowledges 140 additional 2" diameter trees will be planted. Immature trees are a poor substitute for existing trees and vegetation. They won't effectively prevent erosion. David Rasmussen Mr. Rasmussen is the president of the Sundance Talbot Ridge Homeowners Association. He concurs with Mr. Hanson's comments and believes they represent those of the HOA. He is PRELIMINARY PLAT -5 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 concerned about water access during an emergency situation. Sundance abuts green lands on three sides. There arc plans to develop one of these sides. His concern with water flow is the chance of a wild fire on the greenbelt. He's concerned there will be insufficient access for emergency fire protection. Additionally, there must be secondary access. Jim Condelles Mr. Condelles represents the Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association which is adjacent to the Sundance association. Mr. Condelles objects for the same reasons as Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Hanson. Secondary access should be required. There is a bottleneck on a dead end road. He urges the development be scaled back. He stated he doesn't feel the wetlands buffer averaging is effective. He wants to see full 50 foot setbacks adjacent to all parts of the wetlands. He notes the varying seasonal character of the wetlands. He stated the small change to the project from the original proposal is insufficient to protect the critical areas. The character of the northwest is being eroded by piecemeal development. He noted all the types of wildlife he's seen on this property. He also noted the old growth evergreen trees. This is a virtual rainforest in an urban area that serves as a wildlife corridor. He wants to see a rethinking of the scope. Ellen Brighten Ms. Brighten owns two adjacent properties. She owns property in Campen Springs. She has not been notified of the project. She also owns at Talbot Park. She regularly sees deer. She also stated there are water problems. The springs at Campen Springs move. She is concerned about drainage issues. Ms. Brighten displayed several pictures of the area (Ex. 34). Travis Martinez Ms. Martinez is the president of the HOA for Talbot Park due north of Campen Springs. They have a water problem that results in $50,000 worth of damage per year due to the springs. They arc very concerned stormwater issues will increase. They have received no guarantee that they will not be adversely affected or reimbursed when they are affected by project related stormwater. Ron Hensen Mr. Hensen lives on Smithers Avenue. Smithers Road is adjacent to the proposed development. He has owned the property for 12 years. He has maintained the property for years. He recounted the development history of the area. He knew development would happen on this property eventually. He is concerned about his property values and safety. There is a 50 acre Department of Natural Resources property to the north that is currently for sale. Altogether, there was a single point of access for a couple dozen homes. In the near future, that number could be 150 homes on the same single point of access. This will result in more traffic and a reduced quality of life for existing residents. PRELIMINARY PLAT-6 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 There is an unnoted existing drainage out of the wetlands. There used to be another smaller stream that was obliterated by the traffic circle. The stream can be observed about 8-9 months of the year. During rain events, the system is overwhelmed and water overtops into the stormwater drainage system. There is a subsurface hydrologic connection that connects the wetlands. Proposed Lot 17 is a seep that will not support a residential development. He is in support of a stormwater system that proactively drains this development and future developments. Mr. Hensen also described abundant wildlife in the area. Staff Response Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney The Hearing Examiner asked the City Attorney if there is a proportionality problem in that the Applicant is being asked to provide secondary access now when it should have been provided by past developments for developments farther down the road. Are the Applicants being asked to create an improvement that mitigates more than their own impact? In response, Mr. Warren stated he had not considered the question in that framework. He stated he did not feel there was a proportionality problem because each future development along the line would be required to do their part. The Hearing Examiner asked if the City was considering a latecomers agreement to allow the Applicant to be reimbursed for a portion of the costs when later development took place. Mr. Warren stated the Applicant must request a latecomers agreement. He stated there was only one lot between the proposal site and the connection point. The expense should not be huge. Elizabeth Higgins Ms. Higgins addressed the request by Mr. Reese related to retaining walls. She stated mitigation measure #4 from the Environmental Review Committee requires a building permit for retaining walls for any proposed wall, regardless of location or size. Steven Lee, City of Renton Engineer Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Reese's recommendations. lie stated he concurred with Mr. Reese. He agreed that all of Mr. Reese's suggestions should be implemented as conditions of approval. He wanted to add one further condition. With respect to the stormwater pipe on the slope, he suggests the addition of a slip joint at the base of the hill to allow for movement. Mr. Lee stated he felt the project will not affect downstream stormwater. He noted other projects have been installed on steeper slopes than this. These prior projects have been successful m avoiding erosion. The closed tight line storm water pipe will eliminate erosion impacts. PRELIMINARY PLAT-7 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 In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Lee stated he was unaware of the small stream that used to be in the location of the temporary cul de sac. The post project result will be a reduction in surface run off from the project than current conditions. He stated slope stability will be improved post project. Mark Peterson, Chief, Renton Fire Department In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Peterson stated the fire department is opposed to the street modification. He feels the length of the street is too challenging to service to the area by fire apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling along the electric easement in a nearby neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access point that was cut off by the fire. The fire department could not get in to help residents and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also concerned about the neighborhood being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary access in roads over 700 feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the neighborhood. Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this neighborhood. Applicant Response Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent The Applicant disagrees with the Staff with respect to the street modification. In response to Mr. Peterson, Mr. Carson noted the Renton Fire Department has sent the Applicant a letter stating they would not support the project without a secondary access. He further noted the Fire Department had rescinded that letter, with the condition that they could reinstate the letter at any time based on final plat design. He noted that the fire department reinstated the letter even though there had been no change in fire access since the time the letter had been rescinded. Mr. Carson introduced a letter into the record (Ex. 35) with attachments addressed to the Examiner. This packet included a letter from the Applicant's traffic consultant. Mr. Carson called several witnesses. Mr. Carson introduced two further exhibits (Ex. 36 and Ex. 3 7), the resume of Mr. Jouei Maher and a set of site plans. Maher Jouei. ER Strong Consulting Engineers, Applicant's Agent Mr. Jouei stated the Vuecrest Estates project drainage is tight lined to Campen Springs. Talbot Park drainage goes a different direction than the project drainage. The Vuecrest system will collect all impervious surface drainage and send it to Campen Springs. Mr. Jouei stated the City sent them a letter stating a proposed temporary cul de sac might be acceptable under certain conditions including a stub road for future connections. They would not be asked to construct the actual connection. The pre-application meetings did not suggest they would be required to provide a completed secondary access. On July 3, 2014 the Applicant received PRELIMINARY PLAT-8 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 preliminary comments with an email note that said the situation regarding the second access had changed. They subsequently were told they could not construct the project as proposed because the Fire Department would not support the project without secondary access. That letter was rescinded in October 2013. In February 2014, they received a letter from Ms. Higgins that stated the City would support a street modification to pennit the project to go forward without secondary access. The City did not mention they would not support the modification until August 2014. There has been no material change to the layout since October 2013. Mr. Jouei stated the project is a part of the solution by construction a stub for future access. There is one undeveloped property left before the grid system is completed. Mr. Jouei stated the project complies with the road dimension requirements in the code. He stated emergency vehicles can access the project even in worst case scenarios with cars parked on both sides. The road curvatures meet the requirements. There is a loop road in Stonehaven that provides secondary access. Mr. Jouei reviewed the variance criteria in the street modification. He stated the project suffers from unique circumstances because Talbot Ridge and the Reserve at Stonehavcn were approved with the same variance the current Applicant proposes. He stated the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare because the roads meet the dimensional requirements. He noted the additional trips from Vuecrest would result in 1.6 additional vehicles per minute in the PM Peak Hour. These roads are all LOS A with no accident history. He stated the project benefits the welfare of the public by connecting the grid system. The project has an internal loop system with the alley. The alley will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project will not ask for any special considerations beyond those already granted to existing developments. The proposal is the minimum requested by the City by providing a stub road. The project provides what the City asked for initially. Nothing has changed since then. Mr. Jouei noted there are not many on-street parked cars. All area homes include two car garages for every lot to accommodate parking. Jamie Waltier, Hansen Homes Mr. Waltier thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated the neighbor to the east is not interested in selling his property. They will not be able to purchase a right of way or easement. Mr. Waltier stated the City had supported the stub road without a secondary access. They've incurred significant costs in designing this project they would not otherwise have spent if the City has been consistent on their requirement for a secondary access. As is, the project is not financially viable with the requirement for a secondary access. Carl Anderson, Fire Protection Engineer, Applicant's Agent Mr. Anderson discussed the second access issue from an emergency access perspective. He also suggested mitigation measures. With respect to the public welfare, the proposal is at the end of a PRELIMINARY PLAT -9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ]I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dead end. It does not materially affect the existing homes in the area. For the new plat, there are mitigating measures that can be taken. The Applicant is intending to put in a temporary cul de sac to City standards. The internal alley will also provide emergency access, though it is not intended as a primary emergency access. Although not specifically spelled out in the variance request, the intention is to put fire sprinkler systems in each proposed home. In terms of mitigating fire response to the area, a fire sprinkler system reduces the need for fire responses. The homes will not require full structural responses. The Staff Report mentions 99 homes are accessed on the dead end. The dead end will be 2,400 feet. However, the actual road network has internal secondary means that reduces the housing served by only the dead end itself. Stonchaven has an internal looped road that would allow another access into Vuecrest. Only about 800 feet of roadway will be single access. The 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D-107 addresses substitution of fire sprinklers rather than the provision of secondary fire access. This appendix was not adopted in Renton, though it does support the variance. In response to Mr. Carson, Mr. Anderson stated he is familiar with the International Fire Code Section 503.1.2 which reads the Fire Marshall may require secondary access based on a range of conditions. Mr. Anderson stated the project does not meet any of the conditions in the aforementioned Fire Code Section. This project will eventually result in improved access. Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Anderson ifhe is testifying that he has no fire safety concerns over the fact that this subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson responded, "I don't believe that the addition of Vuecrest is a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already there in the area." The Hearing Examiner stated, "There are a couple points along that Yi mile dead end route where if the road was blocked there'd be no way for the fire department to get to the subdivision, isn't that correct?" Mr. Anderson responded "That's correct." The Hearing Examiner, "What about the Fire Chief Peterson's concern about if you had people evacuating quickly that would make it more difficult for the Fire Department to get to the site, is that a problem here at all, really?" Mr. Anderson responded "It could be a concern, but in the type of isolated events you'd run into, is the likelihood that these additional 20 homes create a significant additional detriment to public safety? I wouldn't think that number would be detrimental, particularly given that this is another piece toward making an eventual connection, which corrects an existing I ,700 foot dead end." Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent Mr. Carson stated his letter goes into detail regarding each of the aforementioned issues. He wanted to highlight a few points. He stated the 11th hour switch in the City's position. The City's code is clear related to pre-application meetings when submitting long plats in order to avoid the circumstance where applicants are not clear about what codes will apply. The first pre-application stated a permanent dead end street is not approvable given the City code. The second pre- application meeting allowed a temporary cul de sac with a future stub to allow for eventual completion of a loop system. The Code says once the pre-application is done, the applicant should PRELIMINARY PLAT-10 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 proceed in concert with the City's advice. The Applicant has done that. With respect to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of his letter, this is no minor thing. Mr. Peterson stated in August 2013 that a secondary access would be required for approval. Mr. Carson was hired at this point. He spoke to the City Staff and the Mayor which led to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of the letter. Mr. Peterson stated he could reissue the letter based on the final design. The design was not changed and Mr. Peterson did not reissue the letter. Mr. Peterson desires to have a secondary access but has not proven the need. Mr. Carson noted Ms. Vanessa Dolby of the City of Renton stated they would not need to provide secondary access. Ms. Higgins also provided a letter that stated the City would approve a street modification to allow the project to move forward without a secondary access. The Applicant contends a variance is not required because they are not proposing a permanent dead end, but are instead providing a temporary cul de sac. However, to the extent a variance is required; the Examiner has the authority to grant the variance. The Applicant supports approval of the variance request (street modification). Mr. Carson notes Stonehaven was approved with a dead end of more than 700 feet because Stonehaven provided a temporary stub to adjacent properties. No variance was required in that plat. All secondary access will be provided in the future as adjacent properties develop. The adjacent property owner in this case refuses to sell the property or grant an access easement. The Staff requirement of a secondary access point represents a significant hardship to the Applicant. If this was a significant public interest, they could use their condemnation authority. Otherwise, this represents an unnecessary hardship to the Applicant. The Applicant has offered adequate mitigation in the form of sprinklers for every residence. The effect of the City's recommendation is legally arbitrary and capricious. The Applicant asks to remove Condition 5 and grant the variance and the plat request. Staff Rebuttal Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton Ms. Higgins answered a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding the typical condition of requiring a gravel, gated access road as emergency access. Ms. Higgins stated the secondary access would need to comply with the Fire Code. Ms. Higgins also stated the Fire Department always asks for secondary access. Public Works assumes there will be no dead ends. She stated she doesn't know the history here and cannot discuss the historical interpretation of secondary access. Since February, the City has taken a closer look at developments next to slopes. They have studied slope stability on existing slopes with respect to vegetation and stormwater. She also stated pre-application conferences allow for recommendations with respect to requirements but do not provide enough information to set those requirements. Ms. Higgins stated the letter from Chief Peterson was withdrawn at her request to get the Applicant to support a secondary PRELIMINARY PLAT-11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 geotechnical study. The Applicant suggested they would not invest more money in the geotechnical study if the Chiefs letter remained. Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney Mr. Warren addressed the comment of dead end roads. He stated this project extends the dead end road. There is no way to tell how long before the adjacent property owner will want to develop the property, if ever. The road may exist as a dead end road ad infinitum. This project creates a longer dead end road that could be blocked at some point. There is no solution to the dead end road as currently proposed. The City Code on dead end roads (RMC 4-6-060(H)) requires two means of access and sprinklers for roads over 700 feet. There is no waiver of secondary means of access. There is only a waiver for methods of turn around. This code was in place before the Application but after the other existing subdivision located along the dead end road. There is no definition of a dead end road in City code. Common definitions would call this road a dead end. This is an infill project on a difficult site. Applicant's Rebuttal Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman. Applicant's Agent Mr. Carson noted RMC 4-6-060(H)(6) regarding the waiver of a turnaround does not apply. Under certain circumstances is related to the circumstances when a turnaround does not apply. The Code section that docs apply is RMC 4-7-240 in the subdivision code. This alJows variances to be approved by the Hearing Examiner. This is the same situation as Stonehaven. There is no substantial increased to the public welfare but the Staff recommendation does provide a significant burden to the Applicant. Public Rebuttal David Rasmussen Mr. Rasmussen stated that parking in front of Stonehaven do not represent the true parking 21 situation, especially around the holidays. 22 EXHIBITS 23 24 25 26 Exrnbits 1-31 listed on page 2 of the September 15, 2014 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report itself (Ex. 1 ), were admitted into evidence during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted during the hearing are the following: PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ex. 32 Eric Hanson Testimony Summary Ex. 33 Owen Reese Testimony Summary Ex. 34 Ellen Brighten Pictures of Campen Springs and wildlife Ex. 35 Brent Carson Letter to HE (9/15/14) Ex. 36 Resume of Mr. Maher Jouie Ex. 37 Set of maps showing subject site and surrounding area. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 8 I. Applicant. Harbour Homes. 9 10 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on September 11, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. 11 3. Project Description. The applicant has submitted an application for a 20 lot Preliminary Plat. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The application includes a request for the waiver of street improvements to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of a 9.31 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The proposed density is 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. The project site is currently undeveloped, except for a paved, temporary cul-de-sac. The site contains three land use zones, Residential I dwelling unit per net acre ( du/ac ), Residential 8 (8 du/ac) and Residential 14 (14 du/ac) [Exhibit 3]. Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.06 acre (263,328 sf) portion that is zoned R-8 is proposed to be developed. The proposed density would be 4.23 du/ac Subdivision into 20 lots would result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts arc proposed for sensitive areas and tree retention. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a "dead end" road from the intersection of SE l 86'h St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplemental Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information Report with the application. PRELIMINARYPLAT-13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Although the project site lies within the boundaries of the Renton Water Service Area, the City does not have water service mains near the project site. Water service would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District from an existing water main located at the Smithers Ave S street end at the north portion of the property. A certificate of water availability from SCWSD must be provided prior to issuance of construction permits. The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City of Renton. There is a sewer main and a manhole at the south end of Smithers Ave S. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. The Renton Police Department has commented that there would be minimal impacts from the project. Fire service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees (presumably including fire impact fees) and that a second access be provided to the site in accordance with RMC 4-6-060H, which prohibits dead end streets longer than 700 feet in length. The need for a second access is the most significant factual issues presented in this hearing. The applicant disputes the need for the secondary access. It is determined that the secondary access is necessary to provide adequate/appropriate fire protection service. The proposed project site is located at the end of an existing dead end street in excess of 700 feet. The proposal asks for approval of a temporary cul-de-sac on an extension of this street. The length of the extended dead-end street would be approximately 2,364 feet, from the point at which it becomes a dead end at Main Avenue South (SE 102nd St) and SE 186th St to the new street end within the proposed project. Currently, there arc 99 lots that are accessed by this dead end street. As testified by Renton Fire Mark Peterson, the length of the street is too challenging to service to the area by fire apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling along the electric easement in a nearby neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access point that was cut off by the fire. The fire department could not get in to help residents PRELIMINARY PLAT -14 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 and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also concerned about the neighborhood being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary access in roads over 700 feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the neighborhood. Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this neighborhood. The applicant presented its own fire expert, Carl Anderson, to provide testimony on the safety of fire access. Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. The hearing examiner asked Mr. Anderson if he had any safety concerns over the fact that the proposed subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson did not respond with a simple "yes" or "no". Mr. Anderson did not testify that the subdivision would have safe or adequate fire access with one fire access road. Rather, he concluded that the addition of the proposed 20 lots would not be "a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area". Mr. Anderson's somewhat tortured response leaves the very strong impression that he did not want to opine on the fire safety of a single access point to the subdivision; that instead the most supportive comment he could make for his client was that in the context of the safety problems faced by the 99 other lots in the area, the safety impact to the proposed subdivision was not that significant. The fact that other subdivisions may have similar safety issues has no bearing on whether the single access to the proposed subdivision is safe and adequate. In short, the applicant has not provided any expert testimony to refute the Fire Chiefs testimony that the proposed single access would be safe or adequate for the proposed 20 lots. Mr. Anderson noted that the applicant would be willing to provide sprinkler systems to mitigate against the single access. He did not testify that this would completely mitigate against the dangers of single access. Mr. Anderson noted that Appendix D to the. International Fire Code addresses the use of fire sprinklers to substitute for secondary access roads. Appendix D was not offered into evidence and the examiner cannot take judicial notice of it because it has not been adopted by the City of Renton. More determinative is that the Renton Municipal Code does not expressly authorize a substitution of secondary access roads with fire sprinklers. In fact, RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) already requires sprinklers in addition to two access roads for streets longer than 700 feet in length. Clearly, fire sprinklers are not considered an adequate substitute for secondary access under city standards if they are already required in addition to secondary access for dead end roads such as the one serving the proposed development. If the applicant wishes to use fire sprinklers as a substitute for secondary access, it has the burden of establishing that the sprinklers will reduce the fire hazard to insignificant levels. The PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 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 C. applicant has only shown that the fire hazard is reduced, but has not established or even asserted that the reduction in hazard would be reduced to acceptable levels. The applicant's arguments are well noted that the single access road was found sufficient for the other 99 lot served by it and that staff has changed its position on the adequacy of the access for the proposed subdivision. The inconsistencies in the staffs position does undermine the credibility of their position. However, the reasoning of the fire chiefs testimony is highly compelling; that testimony is largely left unchallenged by the applicant; and the need for the two access points is clearly laid out in the City's development standards with no express exception for sprinkler systems. Further, it must also be acknowledged that circumstances have changed since the approval of other subdivisions along the dead end road. In prior years development occurred at a much more rapid pace and expectations were high that a looped road would be completed relatively quickly. The length of the dead end road was of course shorter for each preceding subdivision and the amount of road necessary to complete a looped system was correspondingly longer. The applicant presented testimony that accidents were unlikely to prevent fire access given the width of the single access road, but the fire chief was well aware of this condition when he presented his testimony. The preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence in the record establish that two access points are necessary to provide adequate/appropriate and safe fire access to the proposed subdivision. Drainage. The applicant submitted a drainage report and drainage plan on July 15, 2014, Ex. 11. Staff have determined that the report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site conditions, as required by the Department of Community and Economic Development. This proposal is specifically required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter I and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. This means that off-site flow volumes and rates may not be higher than predevelopment levels. The site is subject to full drainage review. The project is required to provide detention and water quality under the current King County Surface Water Manual. The engineer has provided a design for a combined detention and water quality vault to be located on Tract A of the site. A tightlined stormwater conveyance system shall be utilized to transport discharged stormwater from a vault to an PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 existing system at the bottom of the protected slope (Tract F). A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing system is required by the conditions of approval prior to issuance of construction permits. Owen Reese, a civil engineer retained by the homeowner's association of the neighboring Campen Springs development, made several recommendations on drainage mitigation during the hearing. City engineering staff confirmed that the stormwater suggestions made by Mr. Reese should be added to the conditions of approval. The suggestions reasonably protect against slope stability, are made by qualified experts and there is no evidence to the contrary. The drainage and slope stability recommendations made by Mr. Reese will be made conditions of approval 1. D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-lor R-8 district. RMC 4-2-115 does impose open space requirements for the R-14 district based upon the number of dwelling units, but since no dwelling units are proposed for the R-14 portion of the development, no open space is required. RMC 4-3-110 requires that 50% of the portion of the plat within the Urban Separator Overlay shall be designated as a non-revocable open space tract. As determined in the staff report, p. 14, the open space tract proposed by the applicant satisfies this standard (which appears to be accomplished by Tract F, which takes up most if not all of the Urban Separator property, see Ex. 4) . The impact fees in conjunction with the open space tract required by the Talbot Urban Separator provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. Access to the plat is proposed via Smithers Ave and the conditions of approval require the applicant to extend Smithers through the adjoining property to the east to 102"d Ave S. Internal access includes looped alley access. The applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis, admitted as Ex. 30, that was reviewed and approved by City public works staff. The study determined that the proposal would generate 16 am peak hour trips and 21 pm peak hour trips. The study shows that affected intersections would maintain a level of service A with or without the project. There is no concurrency analysis submitted into the record. 25 1 Mr. Reese also recommended that the applicant monitor a migrating stream channel located off-site. Mr. Reese and staff acknowledged that the ,proposal does not adversely affect or exacerbate this condition. Consequently, the 26 project cannot be legally conditioned to address the issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 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 However, given the lack of any significant impact on affected intersections it is detennined at this time the proposal is consistent with the City level of service standards. 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. Adequate/appropriate provision is made for schools. The proposal is located within the Renton School District. The staff report notes that it is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School, and Lindbergh High School. These schools are not within walking distance of the proposed development. Transportation would be required. A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will also 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 $5,455.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal as conditioned with secondary access. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The proposal involves single-family housing at a density 4.23 dwelling units per acre, which is at the bottom end of the 4-8 units per acre required in the R-8 zone. This is a legislatively set standard of what is considered a compatible density for the area. Consequently, there are no issues of compatibility with surrounding development based on density. Many of the public comment letters expressed concern over the loss of trees. There are 401 trees on site with diameters of more than six inches. The applicant proposes to retain 42 of these trees and replace the remaining trees with 140 two-inch diameter trees. Most development of undeveloped areas involves the removal of trees. What constitutes an acceptable level of tree removal is a highly subjective detennination. As with density, the Renton City Council has legislatively detennined an acceptable level of tree removal by the adoption of tree retention ordinance codified as RMC 4-4-130. As noted at p. 14 of the staff report, the applicant's tree retention and replacement plan is consistent with RMC 4-4-130. Consequently, the proposed tree removal cannot be considered a significant impact of the proposal. There are protected slopes, wetlands, and a stream located within proposed sensitive area tracts (Native Growth Protection Areas) on the site. The anticipated impacts of these areas have been addressed in technical reports and studies [Exhibits 16-27] and the Environmental Review Committee Report [Exhibit 31]. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all mitigation measures arc met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. A storm drainage line is proposed across the face of the protected slopes. A critical area exemption is required for placing drainage lines on protected slopes. Staff determined that the proposed drainage line, as conditioned, would improve slope stability. Staff has found slope stability to improve for PRELIMINARY PLAT-18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 other proposals under the same conditions. As concluded in the conclusions of law, this resulting increase in slope stability serves as the basis for approving the critical area exemption. Several public comment letters expressed concern over the encroachment of the project onto the fifty foot buffer of a Category II wetland and at least one comment letter asserted there are two Category II wetlands on-site as opposed to one. As depicted in a site plan attached to the critical area study, Ex. 17, five 2 lots encroach onto the fifty foot buffer of the wetland as well as Tract A (the stonn drainage tract) and portions of the interior road. The applicant has proposed to remove these encroachments through buffer averaging, which is allowed by the code and involves the replacement of buffer reduction area by I: I increases in buffer area at other parts of the buffer. A total of I 0,463 square feet of buffer will be reduced and a total of 12, 198 square feet will be added in the buffer averaging proposal. The buffer averaging proposal has been reviewed and approved by qualified third party review, Ex. 16, as well as by staff. The critical area studies provide a compelling and thorough justification for the averaging based upon best available science. There is no evidence in the record that the proposed averaging would adversely affect the wetland or that the wetland delineations are inaccurate. For these reasons, the proposed buffer averaging is determined to be consistent with the City's critical area regulations and will not create any significant adverse impacts to the wetland functions or values. Erosion and slope stability were also cited in numerous public comment letters as an area of concern. As noted previously, staff have concluded that the proposed drainage line across the steep slope will serve to improve slope stability. The City has detailed erosion control standards applicable to clearing and grading activities that will protect adjoining properties from erosion impacts. As previously noted, the City stormwater regulations require off-site stonnwater flow volumes and velocities to be at or less than pre-development conditions. The proposal has also been subject to extensive geotechnical review coupled with third party review designed to assure that the proposal will not adversely affect slope stability, as shown in Ex. 19-26 and 31. There has been no expert testimony to show that the analysis and mitigation pertaining to erosion and slope stability is deficient, except for some suggestions made by Mr. Reese, all of which have been adopted except a request to monitor stream channel migration that Mr. Reese acknowledged is not affected by the proposal. For all these reasons, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant slope stability or erosion impacts. Conclusions of Law I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-8-0SO(G) classifies preliminary plat applications as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies development standard modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to 25 2 The site plan actually only shows a buffer reduction in four lots, neglecting to identify a reduction in buffer for Lot 21. The text of the critical areas study, however, identifies at p. 14 that the buffer on Lol 21 will be removed through 26 averaging. Consequently, it is understood that the site plan incorrectly fails to identify buffer removal from Lot 21. PRELIMINARY PLAT-19 1 2 3 4 5 each be processed under "the highest-number procedure", which in this case is Type III review, involving a review and a final decision issued by the hearing examiner. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The developed portion of the property is zoned R-8. Other portions of the property are zoned R-1, R-1 and the western third is within the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay. The comprehensive plan designations are Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single-Family (RSF) and Residential Medium Density (RMD). 6 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. RMC 4-7-080(8): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: £stablish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because offload, 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 for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Conclusion K(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 3 7, each proposed lot will directly access Smithers Ave S., a public road, or indirectly via a private alley. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas. No flooding problems are anticipated because as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 the proposal is served by adequate/appropriate stormwatcr facilities and the project is not located in a floodplain. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 5. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 6. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Conclusion K(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 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. PRELIMINARY PLAT-20 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. All of the internal roads of the proposed subdivision eventually connect to Smithers Ave S., an existing road. RMC 4-7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 8. 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 connections that appear possible with the steep slope and open space limitations to the west are those proposed and required by this decision. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, 8 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of:way or for easements to the City for trail 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 purposes. 9. The subdivision is not located in the area of an officially designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formation:..). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 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 RCW before 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- 050Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: PRELIMINARY PLAT-21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. 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. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 9 10. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the storm water design assures 10 11 12 13 that it will not contribute to flooding and that water quality will not be adversely affected. Development will not encroach into critical areas except as authorized by the City's critical area regulations. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. The on-site stream will be protected by the critical area ordinance compliant buffer that applies to it. The City's stormwater regulations provide for adequate protection of water quality for the on-site stream and wetlands. 14 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 15 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 11. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-lSO(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 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 defined and designated by the Department. 12. As conditioned, the proposed street system connects existing streets. RMC 4-7-150(8): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 13. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 RMC 4-7-lSO(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 14. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial. 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 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. 15. 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): 12 I. 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. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid paltern 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 ofa 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 future connectivity. 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 PRELIMINARY PLAT-23 1 2 3 RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval ofa plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layoul and determine that the use ofalley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 4 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically 5 possible. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 16. The proposed and required connections are the maximum that can be included given the steep slopes to the west, critical areas to the south, existing development and the vacant parcels to the south. Lots 11-16 are accessed by an alley. The proposal as conditioned contains a looped road and no cul-de-sac is proposed. The criterion above is met. 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 full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 17. As proposed. RMC 4-7-lSO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 18. There are no streets that could be extended in the event of future adjacent platting under the approved subdivision design. 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. As depicted in Ex. 3 7, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. 21 19. 22 RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private 23 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 24 20. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 25 26 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of PRELIMINARY PLAT-24 I development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 2 provisions ()f this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 3 4 5 6 7 8 21. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of(l) pipes/em 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 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). As shown in Ex. 37, the requirement is satisfied. 9 22. 10 RMC 4-7-l 70(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-oj:,my, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (l 5'). 11 12 23. As conditioned. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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. 24. The on-site wetland and stream is set-aside from the developed portion of the subdivision. The criteria above is met. 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 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. As conditioned. 21 25. 22 RMC 4-7-200(8): 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 c,f sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage 23 24 25 26 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving/or the plat. PRELIMINARY PLAT-25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 26. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 27. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(0): 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 9 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed. including all 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 28. 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/or 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, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required lo bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 18 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 19 20 29. As conditioned. 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City a/Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: PRELIMINARY PLAT-26 I 2 3 4 5 6 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 30. As conditioned. Street Improvement Waiver 7 31. RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) requires two means of access for homes served by a dead end street 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 longer than 700 feet. The applicant wishes to have this secondary access requirement waived for the dead end street that serves it, Smithers Ave. S. The length of Smithers Ave. S. as extended by the proposed subdivision would be 2,364 feet. RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) authorizes the waiver of the installation of street improvements 3 subject to the determination that there is reasonable justification for such wavier. RMC 4-9-250(5) provides that reasonable justification shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative impacl on a shoreline's area. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible. c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as restricting available access. d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is lit/le likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (] 0) years. e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare 1f the improvements are not installed, and that the improvements are not needed/or current or future development. 22 3 The secondary access required by staff may not have to be "improved" since its sole purpose is to provide for emergency access and no paving or even grading may be necessary. The issue at hand could be characterized as 23 more of a street grid issue than a street improvement issue. Consequently, it is debatable whether the RMC 4-9- 250(C)(2) waiver process applies in this instance. The alternative modification process would be RMC 4-9-250(0), 24 which applies to those standards not covered by RMC 4-9-250(B) or (C). The proposal would also fail to meet the RMC 4-9-250(0), since authorizing one access point would not meet the intent or safety objectives of the Code. 25 The applicant used the criteria of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) in its briefing, which clearly does not apply to the requested modification. The RCW 4-9-250(B)(5) criteria only apply to the development standards expressly identified in 26 RCW 4-9-250(B)(l). RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) is not !isled amongst those standards. PRELIMINARY PLAT -27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The requested waiver cannot be approved because it fails to meet RMC 4-4-080(C)(5)(e). As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, waiver of the proposed secondary access requirement would prevent the provision of safe and appropriate/adequate fire response. Consequently, the proposal will have a detrimental effect on public safety. As testified by the Fire Chief, one access point can prevent fire apparatus from reaching the subdivision in case of emergency due to large numbers of persons leaving the emergency scene or damage caused by the emergency (such as seismic events and wildfires). The applicant asserts that the proposed stub ending for Smithers Road does not qualify as a "dead end" under RMC 4-6-060(H), and hence the two access requirement does not apply. The applicant argues that a stub road should not be considered a dead end because it is only a temporary situation that will be removed upon development of the adjoining subdivision to the east. It is concluded that the proposed stub road qualifies as a dead end. This interpretation is supported by both the plain meaning and the intent of the ordinance. The Meriam Webster definition of "dead end" is "a street that ends instead of joining with another street so that there is only one way in and out of it". The proposed stub road clearly meets this definition. The idea that a stub road is not a "dead end" road does not meet the intent of the two access requirement, which is to prevent a dangerous situation. The "temporary" road stub could be in place for years and even decades before the adjoining property to the east is developed. The risk of preventing fire access, which is what the two access requirement is designed to minimize, is not materially reduced by a stub road that could remain in place for this period of time. It is also noteworthy that the "dead end" situation for development along Smithers Ave. S. could have always been considered temporary, since Smithers will eventually form a looped system. Despite this "temporary" situation, staff in the Stonehaven development, located along S. 47th St. (which is an extension of the Smithers dead end street) still required a modification to the two access requirement ofRMC 4-6-060(8)(2)4. See Ex. 37, att. J, Finding of Fact No. 14. The applicant points out in its briefing that RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) provides that cul-de-sacs and dead ends should only be authorized in circumstances where no "future connection" to a road grid is physically possible. If "road stub" qualifies as a cul-de-sac or dead end, then RMC 4-6-060 would have to be read as only authorizing road stubs if no "future connection" to a road grid is possible, which of course makes no sense. The conclusion to be drawn from this language is either that (I) a cul-de-sac or dead end does not include a road stub; or (2) RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) impliedly only applies to permanent cul-de-sacs or dead ends (i.e. not road stubs). Given the plain meaning of the "cul-de- sac" and "dead end" terms and the fire safety objectives of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2), the latter interpretation is determinative. The City Council likely intended that RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) would require staff to only authorize permanent dead ends when it was physically not feasible to require a connection and if any dead ends had to be allowed, the fire safety impacts would be mitigated by the secondary access and sprinkler standards imposed by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). Given that a "future" 24 4 At the hearing the City Attorney noted that RMC 4-6-060 has been amended several times over the years and its unclear whether the same two access requirement applied to other subdivisions along the Smithers Ave S dead end 25 road system. A look at the legislative history available to the examiner reveals that RMC 4-6-060(H) has remained the same since at least 1995, when RMC 4-6-060 was first adopted. The Stonehaven preliminary plat was approved 26 in 2004. PRELIMINARY PLAT -28 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 cmmection could take decades to complete, it is doubtful that the Council would have intended a road stub to remain in place for decades without the mitigation required by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). The most difficult issue raised by the applicant is the potential violation of its constitutional property rights. It is logical to presume that the Council does not intend its development regulations to be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitutional rights of property applicants. At the least, violation of those rights is counter to the financial interests of the City since property rights violation easily translate into damages claims. An exaction that exceeds the proportional responsibility of an applicant for a development impact is a violation of the takings clause. See, e.g. Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). A strictly proportionate requirement from the applicant for a looped fire access road system would arguably just be requiring the construction of that portion of the loop located on the preliminary plat property. However, even if this were technically correct for strict proportionality, only rough proportionality is required in exactions cases. See, Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 90 I, 918 ( I 995)("it is not necessary for the government to show a "precise mathematical calculation" of the connection between the exaction and the impact of the proposed development.") It is also of high relevance that the public interest at stake is at the high end of the range of compelling government interests, namely public safety. Requiring the applicant to acquire access rights across private property to mitigate against congestion or aesthetic impacts may be questionable under a proportionality analysis. However, the City is in a very good position to argue that requiring the acquisition of access rights across one adjoining lot is entirely proportionate to avoiding the dangers identified by the Renton Fire Chief as attendant to placing an additional 20 homes near the end of a half mile dead end road. Ultimately, the merits of the applicant's constitutional arguments do not have to be addressed. As previously discussed, the constitutional issues are relevant to the interpretation of City development standards. Beyond this, the examiner has no authority to waive City development standards if they violate the constitutional property rights of an applicant. RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) strictly provides that "in no case" shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. There may be some room to allow constitutional restrictions to influence what level of risk of harm should be considered "detrimental" under the standard, but that only goes so far. The Renton Fire Chief testified that in case of emergency there was a danger that he may be prevented from dispatching his fire trucks to the proposed subdivision because of the half mile long dead end road. As determined in the findings of fact, the applicant did not provide any convincing evidence to the contrary. No matter how liberally construed to achieve consistency with constitutional requirements, there is no way to reach a conclusion of "no detrimental" effect on public safety given the testimony of the fire chief. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat and street improvement waiver is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. PRELIMINARY PLAT-29 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 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 (I 5'). 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 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 his 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. The easements for the alley shall authorize access to all lots of the proposed subdivision. 9. The applicant shall comply with nine the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated August 26, 2014 [Exhibit 14]. 10. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, meeting all landscape plan submittal requirements of RMC 4-8-1201. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Street PRELIMINARY PLAT-30 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 trees shall not include Callery Pear and trees on S. 48th Pl shall be a different type from those on Smithers Ave S. 11. The Replacement Tree Plan shall be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting 140 two-inch diameter replacement trees. 12. Vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) shall be planted to replace vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property. Type and quantities shall be sufficient to ensure erosion control in the protected slope area. 13. The primary access road, Smithers Ave S, shall connect to S 48th Pl and be extended to the east to provide a second access from Main Ave S ( I 02nd Ave SE) at its intersection with SE 186th St. The completion of this street and its connection to Main Ave S shall be a condition of project approval. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary fire access. The extended street, providing a second access to the proposed development, shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat. 14. A recorded casement agreement demonstrating access to the existing downslope stormwater control system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits. 15. A Homeowners' Association shall be incorporated for maintenance and equal and undivided ownership of the tracts, the private access road, and the alley. 16. An easement shall be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be at the time of recording the final plat. 17. All new fill shall be composed of free draining structural fill and not native soils. 18. Drainage from western lots into the steep slopes shall be minimized and all such drainage shall be dispersed. 19. Anchors for the storm water tight line shall only be placed on the top and bottom of the pipe. The anchors should be designed to withstand tree fall and soil movement. The pipeline should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up the hill. PRELIMINARY PLAT -31 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATED this 3rd day of October, 2014. 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-l lO(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. 9 A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal 10 11 12 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(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 m valuation for property tax purposes 13 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-32 Phil Olbrechts Jamie Waltier Schneider Homes Maher Joudi (Signature of Sender): COUNTY OF KING ·••,,1111m1il!llliil1c1~1((ieil'~~~-f qft ................ . • •COM.~!!l'JI.D'i!l~()l'J(')l'fl.'.~i~.~¥[~()Rllfl~.™I"• •iii•iA.EE!PAV!l9·~· SERVJCl:•11.Y.MAIUJIJG••: Hearing Examiner Applicant Owner Contact Dated: AIO ko1,lc, I Ci 'J 01 'j 1 I otary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print): __ _,!_w-lc.wl.uL./4-.A1A-.--!:P_.,aw ... 5 ....... ,"''-'~.,_-_~---,.--,1--:i _______ _ My appointment expires: a .. V '-'" 1 "" ,_ CX u f Vuecrest Estates LUA13-000642, ECF, PP, template~ affidavit of service by mailing Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Henrv Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON. WA 98056-6373 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle. WA 98121 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055 Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle. WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4 717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murray Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98121 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON. WA 98056-6373 Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Nancv Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNED Ct S RENTON, WA 98055-7328 William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6399 Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl 5 Renton, WA 98055-8359 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct 5 Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ginnv Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #SS202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8355 Ltanva Terrell Jones 4769 Morris Ave S, Unit S302 Renton. WA 98055-6374 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6374 William & Lvnn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Tammy Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 5outhcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055 , ' Agencies See Attached Maher Joudi Contact Schneider Homes, LLC Owner Jamie Waltier Applicant Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): COUNTY OF KING ,....._,,\\\\\\\111 ,, y ,, .::-'' o\.L Po ,,, ::-~ !l."-''""\l\\1 11 't,;.. 'r ~ .. :',,,i.lS111='••,, :..-. 1i, f8 ~ot.., \ ~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ' .,. ,.. -,,, ,:.;,. ,/ , 11 .... \Ulc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante ~ % 1,' ·' _•J } signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act to,1.,i1f;,dl,~l;lttd f;Fpos_es t ' d · th , t t O ,,,. 9 .11 --0~ . men 1one in e ms rumen . :;('-10\\\\"""',..., ... ~ -· *4SHl~G Dated: A ''fill ,) 1 )DI'{ Notary (Print): _____ .,_i lwc~(LCD-;'4<--iL::,,_c .. -l..i.Jc.c'::..,/c.·,l,,, ------------- ,,) -My appointment expires: '-'A. '--~+-,_;zq ,)__0/'f. ~u t Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUAB-000642, ECF, PP 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 Box47015 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) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer lssaquah1 WA 98027 39015-172"d 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 172nd 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: Tim McHarg Attn: Jack Pace Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98056 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila 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 Applicatlon states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. •*Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov *• *Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing ' ' T I I I All3AV·O!l·008-~ WO,l'.U9A8'MMM . Rebecca Evers -. 706 S 41th St Renton, WA 98055 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 980S5-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 r )wdn-d()d p.lOqaJ a1 JaJ~A9'J l ap U!.!O a,mpeq •I ~ za11d•H Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 William & Stephanie Struvk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Chervl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 f m a6p3 dn-dod asodxa ! oi aun 6uo1e puaa I 1uawa0Jel.p ap suas y @091S @All3AV i1,eqe6 •1 zas!J!ln ,a1ad e sa11>•! sauanb1+~ Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Nancv Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNETT Ct S RENTON. WA 98055-7328 Henrv Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton. WA 98055-8359 ' I I I @091S aie1dwa1 @f.J•Nv asn s1aqe1 @l••d Ase3 A1t311V-Q9-008-L .II/PY~a11e:Ml','IM. Phillip Davis • 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton: WA 98055-8355 Ltanva Terrell Jones 4769 Morris Ave S, Unit S302 Renton, WA 98055-6374 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lynn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 )w.dn-dod p.mqa.J a1 Jal~A~J ap UJf• a1n4,e4 •I ~ za11d•H ', ' ,-,~---i'>',' ,', , ' ,• Tammy Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Jason Murray Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98121 f ma6p3 dn-dOd asodxa ! Ol aun 6uo1e puag I Juawao.1e1p •P suas T @09L5 @AH31\V weqe6 •I zas111+n ,a1ad ~ sa1p•J sa»anb11~ Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #55202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 r I I I @09 ~s a1e1dwa1 ®"'""" asn s1aql!l @l••d Ase3 Of ENVIRONMENTAL omRMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANa Of ADIDRMINATION OF NOl'HIGN11ia.NCE· MITTGATEtl (DNS--M) = TO NOTIFY INTOIE'iTEO PERSONS Of .lll a(ll!RONMOITAl .<CllON ----w.u3-IIOOf.C'..KI',,.,. .-aUXKOf~Avu,IJli TIIE cm Of RENTON !NVl•ONMENTAL REVIEW (OMMITTU icr<CJ MM OITTIIMlfl(ll TllAT THE ~Ol'OStD ACTHJN D!J~ NQTIU,V'E A s,GNlflC>.NT l,!lVl)tSE IMPACT ON THE Elf\/lR()NM[NT. ~oftt,o..,...._..i........--Nin.dl~~°"""-'"5:0Cl,._....""5'0P'""'bor u, 201 ...... --""' ._,~ fN ...i,r,, H-"" __., 0ty of llen<Grt, 105, s.o,,rth Gmtf 'N,,f, ,._,wA,ao'S7, ..._.. ... tn.bo_ ... __ bl'O'Yd!IIMC.&.a-llaond~ ._..IOIIM_.f"'<K..,....,-boalrh.-:llrom"'•"°"""'otyo.n(sOfflca,("151~ A l'IJOUC MEARING >MU OE HELD ST TIIE REKTON "EARING W"'INER IN DIE COONOl o+AM&RS ON THE In< fl.COIi Of 01'I' HAL'.. Ill:';! ~UTH GAAOY WAV, RENTON, W~INGTON, ON Ul'nMIJU 1&, 2lll,I AT lD'°° AM TO o:JN'ilOER THE PREU'°'I......_, PlAT. If THO ENVJIONMHITAL OITTf<MINATION IS APPU.UD. THE .lff'E/u. W•L!.&E ~c,IRO ~ PAIIT Of TH~ l'IJ9UC HEAl'<ING. P\.EllSE !NCI.UDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WMEN CAWf'G fOR PIIDPER Fil.I: IDEffTIFICA.TION. CERTIFICATION ' -; I, \ \ l \c.:/v (/YI hereby certify that :s copies of the above document were post d in~ conspicuous places or nearby the descri15ed property op Date: 3 · l'1~!L{ Signed: (:hf/1/(A l_)j;:~:!1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that .Ao,¥ dev i,;) kcl:a ·:b:rrr:V signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their ree and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument, "'"'""''' Dated~,,, _!";;,_ "' If ~ I ,I,> C \ .ou•" ,~.# t <S'j''•,, 8-2~',,-,."",·-' A/.,. 111 H,,w~.,,,, r· · · /::"('\J:'•"'~ ', Notary(f'i blic in and for the State of Washington Notary ( Print): __ _._! .. I c""J""i "4--.....J/''-.'-'D'-"1 ,,.,_,· i'c,:f..;}>-.------- My appointment expires: ____ ...LkfCIJ<~Jq., "'"..-, :r.+_ ... 2.._,)~· _..a:,2"'{"", CL.LL--- Elizabeth Higgins From: Ellen B <e1lenb2@msn.com> Sent: To: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:00 AM Elizabeth Higgins Subject: RE: 4612 Morris Ave S Thank you .. I think you are doing a terrific job. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness that you approach your work with. I appreciate that the city is looking at more steep slopes in the city .. even those built on. We certainly don't need more slides. Also we don't appreciate the job our fire department does, until they are needed ... and then we need them desperately. It only takes one hiccup for the help not to make it there in time. "Usually" is not the perfect consideration. (ie parked cars, width of street accessible). It was so nice to meet you and have a better understanding of the project. Also to see how things are done. I had not experienced this before. Ellen From: EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov To: ellenb2@msn.com Subject: RE: 4612 Morris Ave S Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:51:38 +0000 I got the photos. Thanks! I will print them out for the file. Elizabeth From: Ellen B [mai1to:ellenb2@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:32 AM To: Elizabeth Higgins Cc: Ellen B Subject: 4612 Morris Ave S Just wanted to make sure this would go through. This is in back, after a big rain. We also are downhill from Campen Springs, which is South of us. We have the hill behind us .. but there is a lot of grass to absorb the water. Most of it comes down the hill from Campen I believe. This even happened this summer with the big rain we had. Ellen 1 ·-. Cynthia Moya From: Elizabeth Higgins Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:51 PM To: Cc: Adriann Alexander; Kelcie J. Peterson; Holly Powers; Sandi Weir Jason Seth; Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Vuecrest Estates Attachments: Vuecrest Estates Letter to POR for HEX 9.16.14.pdf The revised cost of the 385 page staff report to the Hearing Examiner is $57.75 (if it is picked up here) add $7 to ship (although at this point there is no guarantee it will arrive by the day of the public hearing, Tuesday, Sept 16t\ Anyone wanting their personal copy can contact me. I will autograph it at no extra charge. Thank you! Elizabeth From: Sabrina Mirante Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:34 PM To: Adriann Alexander; Kelcie J. Peterson; Holly Powers; Sandi Weir Cc: Elizabeth Higgins; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: Vuecrest Estates Hello Ladies, Please see attached letter sent out to the Parties of Record for Vuecrest Estates LUAB-000642, regarding the Hearing Examiner's hearing next Monday, September 16 at 10:00am. Customers who want copies of the HEX Staff Report/Exhibits are offered options of copying and mailing@ .15 per page, viewing the documents on our website or viewing at the Clerk's Office. The documents are loaded to the Current Land Use Application page under the project name. Elizabeth is listed as the point of contact. If you have any questions let me know. Thank you! Sa6rina 'Mirante, <Pfanning Secretary City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6578 I Fax: 425.430.7300 I smirante@rentonwa.gov 1 , .. ...____ _,:._ __ D_e~~:~::;,a•w _____ ,,,,,,,,, .... r: . ,io; ,City_ 0~ ~ > i ' . · ... . •.t\. ~ .. ~·[ l1 II('1: Cl . a.;.~·~,t L_::3--..~., ~-_·-r Community & Economic Development Department . CE."Chip"Vincent,Administrator Date: September 9, 2014 To: Vuecrest Estates, LUA13-000642 Parties of Record From: Department of Community and Economic Development A public hearing bn the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 10 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S. Grady Way. The staff report to the Hearing Examiner, including project reports and public comment letters, is available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7'h floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number LUA13-000642 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $32.55, plus a handling and postage cost of$7.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added) If you have questions about the report or the project, please contact: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner 425-430-6581 ehiggins@rentonwa.gov Renton City Hall • 1055 Sb_uth Grady_Way .. Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa_gov CITY OF RENT( DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: September 11, 2014 To: City Clerk's Office From: Sabrina Mirante Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: Vuecrest Estates LUA (file) Number: LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins Acceptance Date: June 6, 2013 Applicant: Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes Owner: Schneider Homes Contact: Maher Joudi PID Number: 3123059048 ERC Determination: DNS-M Date: August 29, 2014 Anneal Period Ends: September 12. 2014 Administrative Decision: Date: Anneal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: September 16, 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: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 20-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre {R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located In the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed to limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existino wetland on the site. The annlicant has submitted a Critical Areas Reoort. Sunnlement Stream Study, Traffic Im Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotet. :al Engineering study, and a stormwater report with the u,,plication. Location: 4800 Block of Smithers Ave S Comments: ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS -Determination of Significance. Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP Vuecrest Estates 4800 Block of Smithers Ave S September 16, 2014 PLAN REVIEW COMMr~1rs (LUA13-000642) PLAN ADDRESS: APPLICATION DATE: 05/21/2013 DESCRIPTION; The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 20-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator ovenay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed to limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a stormwater report with the application. ·······························-······· Community Services Review Leslie Betlach Ph: 425-430-6619 email: L8etlach@rentonwa.gov Engineering Review Recommendations: All of the R.O.W. is being proposed to be dedicated to the City, including landscaping and irrigation requiring forestry maintenance and irrigation maintenance, which is currently unfunded. Community Services does not support accepting sensitive area tracts, for other parcels as this is not supported by any adopted plan. Street trees along Smithers Ave S should be trees that mature at a large size. Do not use Callery Pear per plan. Street trees along SE 186th Pl should be different species from trees along Smithers & be large-maturing. Each lot should receive 1 tree except comer lots should contain 2 street trees. All street tree spacing shall be 50 feet on-center. Rohinl Nair Ph: 425-430-7298 email: mair@rentonwa.gov Engineering Plan Review Comments Created On: 07/08/2013 September 11, 2014 The streets has been named by the City and the information has been provided to the applicant engineer. South 48th Place must meet with Fire Department approval regarding culdesac turnaround as per City standard dimensions and/or a secondary access. { Discussed with Corey after your email and he said that things had changed after his email to you). Provide draft letter/ email from Soos Creek regarding the water service to the Vuecrest site. This project is slightly different from other projects since it currently lies in the Renton Service area, but the City does not have water service mains in the area. The existing water main that ends at the north property line of the development, is served by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The location of the detention facility can be determined after the landslide hazard areas concerns are addressed by the geotech and as per City amendments of KCSWDM. Section I of Core Requirement #3: Flow Control of the City's 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment includes I. FACILITY REQUIREMENT IN LANDSLIDE HAZARD DRAINAGE AREAS Proposed projects subject to Discharge Requirement 2 in Core Requirement #1 (seep. 1-20) must provide a tightline system unless the 100-year runoff from the project site can be feasibly infiltrated or one of the other exceptions listed on page 1-20 apply. For infiltration to be used as an alternative to the tightline requirement, it must be feasible per the facility design requirements and limitations specified in Section 5.4. When evaluating the feasibility of infiltration, multiple facility locations scattered throughout the project site shall be considered and used where feasible and practical to avoid concentrating infiltrated water in one location. If multiple facilities are not feasible or practical, then a single infiltration facility meeting the minimum setback requirements in Section 5.4 may be used where feasible. Where infiltration is not feasible, it is still possible for a proposed project to qualify for one of the other exceptions to the tightline requirement specified in Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-20). If such a project is subject to the flow control facility requirement in Core Requirement #3, the required facility must be a detention pond sized to meet, at minimum, the Flow Control Duration Standard Matching Forested site conditions flow control facility standard with a safety factor of 20% applied to the storage volume. The detention pond must be sited and designed so as to maximize the opportunity for infiltration in the pond. To accomplish this, all of the following design requirements must be met 1. The detention pond must be preceded by either a water quality treatment facility per Core Requirement #8 or a presettling basin per Section 5.4, AND 2. All detention pond side slopes must be 3H:1V or flatter and must be earthen, AND 3. Detention pond liners that impede infiltration shall not be used, AND 4. The pond bottom shall be at or above the seasonal high groundwater table, AND 5. The detention pond outflow must meet the discharge dispersal requirements specified in Discharge Requirement 1 of Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-19). Independent secondary review is required consistent with RMC 4-3-100J and RMC 4-3-100F7. b. i Geologic Hazards: Independent secondary review shall be conducted in accordance with the following; i. Required -Sensitive and Protected Slopes, and Medium, High, or Very High Landslide Hazards: All geotechnical reports submitted in accordance with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC, Permits -General and Appeals, shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. An applicant may request that independent review be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority -Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Shorelines, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands subsection F7 of this Section. Page 1 of 3 The Flow control application in the TIR should refer the site as in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) Label the site access shown in the conceptual road and grading plan .... s (as private or public), showing o the ROW easement width, o paved width_ Technical Services Bob MacOnie Ph: 425-430-7369 email: bmaconie@rentonwa.gov September 11, 2014 Recommendations: There is a substantial and long standing encroachment over the southwesterly portion of proposed Tract 'C'. This issue needs to be remedied prior to final plat approval. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA13-000642 and LND-10-0501, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the comers of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said ~LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed Jots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton HAPPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director . A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Remove references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s} are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. Please provide a label, e.g. Tract 'G' for the balance of the parcel being subdivided. Provide appropriate conveying language for the Tracts created. For those belong to the HOA: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract(s whatever} is/are hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners' Page 2 of 3 Association (HOA). In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then "'ach lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided, ship interest in the Tract{s) previously owned by th A.and have the attendant financial and maintenance res~-.. sibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract(s whatever). The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat or reference to a separate recording instrument detailing the same. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner(s). Planning Custom Created On: 06/06/2013 Fire Review -Building Police Review September 11, 2014 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study and Slope Analysis prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC., dated February 25, 2013 and April 10, 2013 respectively. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Supplemental Stream St~dy, prepared by Wetland Resources Inc., dated May 10, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TraffEx Northwest Traffic Experts, dated April 23, 2013. Corey Thomas Ph: 425-430-7024 email: cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150-feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500 -feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. 3. The Renton Fire and Emergency Services Department does not support any variance request waiving the required secondary access due to the extreme length {approximate maximum length of 2,500 feet)of the proposed dead end street. the heavily forested areas surrounding the proposed development and the increased risk of lengthly response times due to traffic and congestion on the existing dead end street already serving approximately 100 single family lots. Recommendations: 20 estimated CFS annually Minimal impact Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-7521 email: cparks@rentonwa.gov Page 3 of 3 Elizabeth Higgins From: Sent: Jim Condelles <jimcond@hotmail.com> Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:21 AM To: Jill Ding; Elizabeth Higgins Subject: RE: LUAB-000642 Vuecrest Thank you Jill, and Elizabeth. We find it particularly disturbing that the new plan has a Lot 9 encroaching 25 feet into a protected wetland and still has Lots 10, 11, 19 and 20 as well as the SE portion of the dead end road penetrating into the wetlands. We also don't believe the safety issues have been addressed in this plan regarding too many homes and cars on an extended no outlet road, including fire department and water pressure safety concerns. Frankly this plan is so slightly modified as to be very nearly the same as before and should not be approved under any circumstances. Jim Condelles jimcond@hotmail.com From: JDing@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com CC: EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov Subject: FW: LUAB-000642 Vuecrest Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:21:47 +0000 Hi Jim, Please find attached the latest version of the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat. Your previous comments have been included in the project file, therefore it is up to you as to whether you would like to provide additional comments on the new layout or not. If you would like, you could submit comments stating that your previous comments/concerns apply to this new layout as well, which would also be included in the record for the decision maker to consider. Please let me know if I can be of additional assistance. Thank you, Jil I From: Sabrina Mirante Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 5:14 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: RE: LUA13-000642 Vuecrest 1 nf£•£ .-A.IP• ~MMl!.Mi &.-e1Te.,a.~ tteGl!t \/J!D ay 1UE.. rust-, c... . T~~u.~ ~ F ~tt-e.f-.. l ~lr<-~~~t r~ ~-r;;-~ o-n Tvcs~. ~ ~~ Jill, I hope this works. It's the newest Plat map received to date. Let me know, have a great nite. Sabrina From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:51 PM To: Sabrina Mirante Subject: LUAB-000642 Vuecrest Hi Sabrina, Could you email me a copy of the revised plat map for this project of Elizabeth's? I'm handling it for her while she is on vacation. Thanks! Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton jding@rentonwa.gov 2 Elizabeth Higgins From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Elizabeth, Jason Murray <jason.murray@mosaichomes.com> Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:36 AM Elizabeth Higgins Vuecrest Estates LUAB-000642, ECF, PP We are the owner of Borgata apartment homes near the proposed project below. We received the notice but were wondering if you can provide any more information? We are trying to determine how this proposed project may affect us. PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-000642, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: Vuecrest Estates Thanks, Jason Murray jason.murray@mosaichomes.com desk 1206.452.0542 cell 1206.601.7905 fax 1206.508.9001 2505 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98121 MOSAIC This e 111ai! (a,1C ,:, a'.'.achmcnt,, if appli:oblc) m~y co1tJ,r co,1f1d,c,1t1:1I Jnd/or l~g~IIV pc"ill-c"e:J 1r1lorr,o\lcr,. It ii inle1d~d soklv fee tl'c ex:lus1·,~ ll5~ of the oddres,e~. If •10.1 ~,~ r-ot t·,~ rntend~d cJ,'·s,,s,,e, plec>,~ Jd,•isl' s•s·r,rlt•r irn·11··~;,11,•l·1 Gist, il,ulion, ropyinr,, LI\? m riis,losurr-of ,ts rnntrnt, t,, ~ny otlL0 r pPrs~n is nroh,hitc-rl ,~1tlrnut p, ior rn:is~·•t. PlcJsr ccns1der the cnvircnrncnt b~forc P" '1!1n7 this c-rrJil 1 Elizabeth Higgins From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David Rasmussen <dr2l4l@earthlink.net> Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:22 PM Elizabeth Higgins; Judith Subia; Jill Ding David Rasmussen; Ronald Hansen; Steve Yantorni; Rebecca Evers Re: Automatic reply: Party of Record Notification -Vucrest Estates LUAB-000642, ECF, pp Sundance HOA Party of Record Notification RevA.docx Please find attached comments/concerns on the Subject development formally submitted herein from the Sundance at Talbot Ridge Home Owners Association. The attached is submitted as stipulated in the Notice of Application received 31 July 2014 and which shall be discussed during the public hearing currently scheduled to occur on 16 September 2014 on the 7th floor of Renton city hall. I look forward to obtaining a better understanding of the approval process and how legally binding Municipal Codes can be adjusted to suit the development process. David Rasmussen President Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA From: Elizabeth Higgins <EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov> Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 7:49 AM To: David Rasmussen <dr2141@earthlink.net> Subject: Automatic reply: Party of Record Notification -Vucrest Estates LUAB-000642, ECF, PP I will be out of the office until Wednesday, August 13th. Please contact Judith Subia at jsubia@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-6575 if you need assistance before that date. If you have a question about Vuecrest Estates (LUA 13-000642) you may contact Jill Ding at jding@rentonwa.gov. Thank your Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development 1 To: The City of Renton -Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA. 98057 Attn: Elizabeth Higgins ehiggins@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6581 11 August 2014, Rev A From: David N. Rasmussen -President Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47'h St Renton, WA. 98055 dr2141@yahoo.com 206-245-5475 Subject: Party of Record Notification to Vuecrest LUAB-000642, ECF, PP Development The following is to notify the City that the Sundance HOA desires to continue to be listed as a Party of Record to the Subject Vuecrest Development and to document continued areas of concern we wish to have addressed as part of the due process of Development Authorization. The "project proponent has submitted a Modification request of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet" to the usual city policy regarding fire department access. We understand the currently established rule to be that in a single-family residential zone there is a legal distance limit on single street access of 500 feet. Exceptions can be granted to 700 feet if all homes more than 500 feet from the single street access have sprinklers. Another exception can be granted if the street width is expanded to allow for faster fire vehicle access. Sundance at Talbot Ridge was granted an exception to the distance rule as both the road was widened and all homes have sprinklers. The furthest house in Sundance is about 1,700 feet from the single access road. The furthest residence in Vuecrest from the single street access will be approximately 2,325 feet. 1) We again ask that the Hearing Examiner provide sufficient detailed justification of the distance variance under consideration or if justification cannot be provided then we ask that the as designed additional access road directly between 102"' Ave SE and the Subject development be required. 2) We ask the Hearing Examiner to direct that further mitigation be investigated as required to address the estimated street access required. Additionally, we ask that the Hearing Examiner consider the following concerns of Sundance HOA with respect to a single entrance through our development to gain access to the Subject development: 1) The fire department exception for distance may be excessive, especially as S 47'h street often has cars parked on both sides of the street limiting fire vehicle response time and access, especially during holiday periods where cars can be parked on both sides of the road restricting access even further. 2) Is the permanent turnaround in the proposed development sufficient to allow for proper ingress/egress of fire emergency vehicles? This has the potential to pose a hazard to fire vehicle access, particularly a ladder truck. 3) There is no rule or definition regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road. By our count there will be more than 130 existing homes beyond the single road serving the area. At maximum build out there could be as many as 150 homes beyond the choke point. What count does the City consider a maximum for safe access during emergency situations? 4) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area. This could be an issue during the peak water flows required during a major fire response. The single main may not deliver enough water flow during the potential demand created by all of the homes that might be served by the main at full build out. The flow rate may not be sufficient to serve the required fire suppression sprinklers required in the structures. We ask that the peak water flow requirements be analyzed to determine suitability for the proposed development. 5) There are three lots and portions of the proposed SE 1861 h Pl. that intrude into the wetland setback areas. Intrusion into the protected zones may be excessive for a relatively small plat. Reducing the number of structures and relocation of the proposed SE 1861h Pl would reduce or eliminate the unnecessary reduction of protected areas. 6) Further study of the unique hydrology of the area may be required. There is a surface water seep that drains over the existing turnaround area for 9 or 10 months of the year. The proposed plat appears to make no provision for this water that will degrade some of the proposed impervious surface and may threaten some of the proposed structures. The wet area may actually be an extension of the existing, recognized wetland in the east portion of the plat and should be carefully reviewed before the plat is approved to determine if additional protection of the possible wetland is required. The Sundance HOA wishes to understand the Environmental and Fire Access variances under consideration for the Subject development and we look forward to participating in the legally required proceedings. Signed, David Rasmussen Date President -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Steve Yantorni Date Treasurer -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Rebecca Evers Date Secretary -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Elizabeth Higgins From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Reserve at Stonehaven < reserveatstonehaven@gmail.com > Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:21 PM Elizabeth Higgins; Jill Ding; rlaw@rentonwa.gov; Randy Corman; Don Persson; Terri Briere; Marcie Palmer; Ed Prince; Armando Pavone; Greg Taylor Bill and Lynn Sebring; Gloria Hunter; Jim and Christina Condelles; Michael and Brittnee Martinez; Martha MacKenzie; jrkelly22@gmail.com; Reserve at Stonehaven Neighborhood Opposition to Vuecrest Subdivision LUA 13-000642 Reserve at Stonehaven HOA_opposition notification to City of Renton_ Vuecrest Estates August 2014.docx Dear Ms. Higgins, Mayor Law and Council Members, As we did last summer when this project first surfaced before the city, The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, a community of 36 involved families and taxpayers, would like to express strong opposition and serious concerns about a proposed land use adjacent to our community. We know that as our elected representatives, it is important to you to hear from constituents about how planned development may not always be in the long-term interests of our communities, our environment or the city. The Vuecrest development plan adjacent to our south Renton neighborhood, while slightly modified recently from 21 lots to 20, continues to be objectionable on a number of significant counts. The development would directly impact safety, access and home values. It strains the limits of development on a single access road and may not provide for adequate water capacity or access for firefighting. It jeopardizes a large section of natural area and would result in the destruction of360 large old gro\\ih trees in one of the last remaining sections of urban forest habitat in an area known as the Talbot Urban Separator. The development would extend a single access, no outlet road that already serves approx. 100 homes and will add 20 new homes into a heavily wooded area. Has the Renton Fire Department been consulted as to the issues of available water pressure to support fire fighting and sprinkler demand? Has there been an examination of the fact that there is no turnaround planned and that the bottleneck will be risky given the number of cars already parking along the narrow streets leading into this planned division? The proposed project jeopardizes a large section of natural area that contains two Category II Wetlands and a Class 4 Strea..!!]. Additionally this area is a significant wildlife habitat. Importantly, the Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study conducted on behalf of the developer may be flawed and we believe requires a secondary review: • The studies cite only one wetland and stream in the development area. There are in fact two Category II Wetlands, not one. 1 • There is a stream (and pona) that for approximately nine months of the year contains substantial water. • The investigator visited the site during the driefil.limeoUhe yea1, when he would not have observed that the stream also drains out to the north for 9 or 10 months out of the year in the current turnaround/dead end street area. Where will that runoff go? • The plan appears to make no provision for this wet area to the north that may actually be an extension of the existing, recognized wetland in the east portion of the plat. This should be carefully reviewed to determine if additional protection is required. • In addition, although requirement state that when wetland and stream buffers overlap, the more restrictive 50' buffer designations apply, the developer is proposing a mere 25' buffer in many critical sections of these sensitive areas. We believe additional mitigation is required to prevent harm to the environment. And we believe further thought needs to go into the wisdom of extending a no-outlet road further, without adequate protection for residents. Thank you for including our concerns on the record. (Please see the attached 4-page document as well). Sincerely, The Reserve at Stonehaven HOA Board Bill Sebring Brittnee Martinez Jim Condelles 2 The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association 17701 10S'h Ave. SE, Box 434 Renton, WA 98055 reserveatstonehaven@g ma ii. com Re: Neighborhood Opposition Notification Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 I 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. S. I Parcel 3123059048 August 14, 2014 Ms. Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Higgins: The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, a community of 36 homeowners and taxpayers within Renton city limits continues to be strongly opposed to the application for, and approval of, the project named "Vuecrest Estates" -Land Use Number LUA 13-000642, ECF, PP -which was recently re-activated after a year on hold. The project would be at the end of an already densely-developed dead-end one-way-out access road -jeopardizing the safety and security of our families and the property values of our homes. It adds bottlenecks, traffic and noise as well as burdens on the water main systems --with a potential flow rate which may not be sufficient for peak firefighting demand and puts at risk homeowners and the ability of fire and rescue response. Finally, the project is in violation of wetlands protections and environmental common sense. The proposal is simply too large for an extremely sensitive environmental area. We and our neighboring residents continue to request denial or substantial limitation of this development as currently proposed. We are requesting the following: 1. Denial of the project, or significant reduction to the scale of the project plan. 2. Denial of exceptions to distance limits for single street access for fire department response. 3. Denial of the application for Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). The impact continues to be significant and is still not mitigated in the current proposal. 4. Reduction by at least five additional home sites which are violating critical areas and wetlands-- and needs significantly greater retention of trees and wildlife habitat. 5. Greatly increased scope of buffer protection around critical wetland and stream areas. 6. Detailed plans to mitigate traffic, parking, safety and access issues. 7. Detailed plans to assure safe fire/rescue and water main capacity which may be at current limits. Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 We are a community of hardworking and involved taxpayers, with home purchase prices ranging from the mid $400,000s to the low $600,000s. This new development would bring severe and irreversible negative consequences once initiated. • The Vuecrest Estates proposal would destroy a large, old growth forest of 360 trees. • It threatens a substantial critical area of wetlands and watershed, including a stream that flows into the Cedar River system. o A documented habitat that is home to eagles, hawks, deer, owls, coyotes, tree frogs, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. o An environmentally sensitive area and one of the remaining woodlands and wetlands in this part of Renton -two category II wetlands and one class IV stream. • Five lots are in sensitive areas, as is the retention pond and the dead end road. • The proposal is simply too large for an extremely sensitive environmental area. We are requesting the City of Renton, King County, and state government officials to represent our interests (the current homeowners most impacted) before those of developers. Unsafe access in a bottleneck • This project is a risk to emergency access and to fire and rescue vehicle response. • No turnaround area is planned. • There is only one access route out of this proposed community. • 115 homes or more would be served by this one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE), an excessive and potentially risky number of homes beyond a single access road (dead end). • Traffic congestion would effectively double since 2013 with as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in the adjacent new development, Panther Ridge) and 40 in the proposed Vuecrest development. Risk to fire response • The project does not appear to involve adding a second water main serving the area. • This is a potential concern regarding adequate water for Renton Fire Department response. Overreach and wetlands encroachment • The current proposal is still too large and encroaches into critical areas in violation of requirements for 50' wetland buffers. o Lot 9 is in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 10 and 11 are in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 19 and 20 are in critical areas or buffer. o Portions of the proposed 1861h Place are in critical areas or buffer. o Portions of the alley behind Lots 15 and 16 are in critical areas or buffer. o A substantial portion of the Tract A retention pond is in critical areas or buffer. • The proposed buffer reductions and "averaging" is inadequate and contrary to environmental protection and needs to be increased significantly. Critical watershed at risk • At risk are 2 Category II wetlands and a stream with a deep pond for 9 months out of the year. • The proposed plat does not make provision for this water and the effects of structures and roads adjacent to it, the proper runoff or the impact to wildlife which relies upon it. Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 Environmental disaster -360 trees to be destroyed • 90% of the old growth forest on the site will be cut down -360 trees destroyed. • The "Tree cutting and Land Clearing Plan" (dated May 20, 2013) -by the Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department's calculation -counts 401 trees on the site. • 122 trees are in critical areas or buffer but only 42 are proposed to be retained or "saved." • The proposal would "replace" hundreds of old growth trees with plants of just 2 inches in width. Wildlife habitat destruction This 400-tree wetlands and forest is a large wildlife habitat. The proposal would destroy a vital natural connector linking remaining forested habitats along the Benson Hill/Talbot Ridge region. Wildlife in this habitat: • Eagles • Coyotes • Red-tail hawks • Opossum • Owls • Doves • Deer • Rabbits • Ducks • Hummingbirds • Raccoons • Tree Frogs In summary, we believe there are grounds to further substantially amend the scale and scope of this proposal or to suspend it indefinitely. We request the elimination of planned homes, roads, 2 structures and developments that encroach on critical areas and request expansion of protection to recognized wetlands prior to any approvals. We ask the City to postpone action until the legitimate concerns outlined above are addressed and as requested last year at this time, we request a secondary review of the wetland and stream studies. Please forward documentation of your consultation with other agencies, including the Renton Fire Department and other first responders as to additional impacts from this proposed development. Please also provide any Environmental Impact Statements as well as detailed reports on all mitigation measures to reduce the likely impacts to each element of the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods so that we can assess whether further mitigation is required to prevent harm. We reserve the right to request additional studies as the process progresses. Sincerely, The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association Bill Sebring, President Jim Condelles, Secretary Brittnee Martinez, Treasurer bill.edward@yahoo.com jimcond@hotmail.com brittneeb217@gmail.com (Below see graphic depiction of the single access neighborhood choke point) Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 Vuecrest project scope, critical area, access limits and neighborhood choke point Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 ; NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTJCE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: June 7, 2013 LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Vueuest Estates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TMe apolicant 1s requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approv.J! for J 21-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a c:ass 4 stream. The ~ite contains three different zones .. Residential 1 dwelling unrts per acre (R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Reside,1tial 14 dv,elli:-.g units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject prope'ty is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has prospered to limit development to the R-8 portion of the si"'.:e. The 21 iots would rE'sult in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,S32 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trE:es. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fiil is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The ap;:ilicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Enginee:ing study, and a stromwater report with the applicati00. PROJECT LOCATION: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED {DNS-MJ: As the lead Agency, ~he City of Renton has determined that sign:ficant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed projec:. TherPfore, as permi:ted under t!"te RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a D/\'S- 011 is likely to be issued. Comment pe:iods for the project and the proposed DNS-M arF' integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Dete:.rninat:on of Non- Significance-Mitigatec (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLJCATION: APPUCANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: May 21, 2013 June 7, 2013 Maher Joudi, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers; 10604 NE 381h Place #232; Kirkland, WA 98033; Eml: maher.joudi@drstrong.com Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review DOE, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Building and Construction Permits Critical Areas Report, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Stream/Lake Study, Traffic Impact Statement, and Wetland Assessment :f you would like to be made a party of ,-ecord to receive further informatio:1 on this proposed project, complete hs form and return to. Cty of Renton, CED-Plarrning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Rer,to:\ WA 98057. Name/Fiie No : Vuecrest Estates/LUAB-000642, ECF, PP NAME: b[ ( <lk\ J3rg_; 4' VI MAILl.'\IG A'JDRESS· TELEPHONE NO.: -1{, l '..L t'\l,wv,'5 Aoe. ~ 4 2. s -7 ':t :S Y. Ll1~ :J_V\I V ~ ClM.~.id. a1ctJ-cwu; \l<t_c)"-· u4 \I/'-,..~~ °"---\n_~ ":.::. &<-ct-4e, ~1 ··-fr~ s . L[) m ,-, lfl .... ! u~ I\) fa} I\) \!I U'l I "D f i. e,r ? (·/ .,,1 t .,, ' • ,_... :.. . •• .• " r ·-· .... ... \ * Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Janet Alabado <jntalabado@yahoo.com> Friday, June 21, 2013 9:32 AM Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fwd: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Sorry but I forgot to add my physical address: 911 S 47th St. Renton 98055 Thanks again, Janet Begin forwarded message: From: Janet Alabado <jntalabado@yahoo.com> Date: June 20, 2013 6:55:32 PM PDT To: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee(a;rentonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 1 , The plat does not appear to incJude a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Janet & Ruelito Alabado 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Janet, Vanessa Dolbee Friday, June 21, 201310:51 AM 'Janet Alabado' RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, 1 encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa (J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Janet Alabado [mailto:jntalabado@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:32 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fwd: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Sorry but I forgot to add my physical address: 911 S 47th St. Renton 98055 Thanks again, Janet Begin forwarded message: From: Janet Alabado <jntalabado!al.vahoo.com> Date: June 20, 2013 6:55:32 PM PDT To: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Cc: bill.edward@vahoo.com Subject: Vuccrest LUA 13-000642 1 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee(a)rentonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. Z} The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands 2 tere several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Janet & Ruelito Alabado 3 Vanessa Dolbee From: Jim Condelles <jimcond@hotmail.com> Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:02 PM Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Laureen M. Nicolay; bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Additional Vuecrest subdivision comments Ms. Dolbee, Thank you for including the comments from myself and our neighbors. Before the comment period ends I wanted to add just a few more, after reviewing some of the documents you provided to my fellow HOA board member, Bill Sebring. Please note: The proposed project jeopardizes a large section of natural area that contains two Category II Wetlands and a Class 4 Stream. It would result in the destruction of 360 large old growth trees and severe reductions in wetland buffer in one of the last remaining sections of urban forest habitat in an area known as the Talbot Urban Separator. Additionally this area is a significant wildlife habitat. Of immediate concern is the application on file with the City of Renton (Vuecrest subdivision -LUA 13- 000642, ECF, PP) that seeks approval for Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). We believe the impact to be quite significant. The proposed mitigation does not adequately mitigate the environmental impacts. The Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study conducted on behalf of the developer, Harbour Homes. may be flawed, contains subjective conclusions, and in certain key areas is objectively in error. • The studies commissioned by the developer cite only one wetland and stream in the development area. There are in fact two Category II Wetlands, not one. • There is a stream (and pond) that for approximately nine months of the year contains substantial water. • The hired investigator visited the site in September, the driest time of the year, when he would not have observed that the stream also seeps out to the north for 9 or IO months out of the year in a turnaround area. • Further study of the unique hydrology of the area may be required. The plan appears to make no provision for this wet area to the north that may actually be an extension of the existing, recognized 1 wetland in the east portio1 the plat. This should be carefully rev1~-ved before approval to determine if additional protection of the possible wetland is required. • In addition, although clearly when wetland and stream buffers overlap, the more restrictive 50' buffer designations apply, the developer is proposing a mere 25' buffer in many critical sections of these sensitive areas. We believe additional mitigation is required to prevent harm to the environment. Thank you, Jim Condelles 855 S. 48th Street, Renton jimcond@hotmail.com From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:49:07 +0000 Jim, I will also add your comments below to the official file. Thank you. r(/anessa <Do[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Ms. Dolbee, Sandeep Mangla <sandeep.mangla@gmail.com> Friday, June 21, 2013 4:22 PM Vanessa Dolbee File No: Vuecrest Estates/LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Follow up Completed I am writing this e-mail as a formal comment on the Vuecrest Estates proposal (LUA13-000642, ECf, PP). I am the homeo=er of724 S 47th St, Renton WA 98055. This new subdivision will have only one access, by extending the existent Smithers Ave S dead-end, at the south end of my neighborhood. Consequently, there will be construction traffic for the year or two this subdivision is being built, following past the narrow 47th St in front ofmy home. Also, once this subdivision is built, there will be additional residential traffic for another 21 houses on the sinl(le road, past the SE186th St-102nd Ave SE intersection, which is already the only point of access for about 80 houses. Therefore, I request the proposal be modified, to create access instead from the SE 186th St -102nd Ave SE intersection. Regards, Sandeep Mangla. 724 S 47th St, Renton, WA 98055. 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Sandeep, Vanessa Dolbee Monday, June 24, 2013 10:38 AM 'Sandeep Mangla' RE: File No: Vuecrest Estates/LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of proJect decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa <Do[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 From: Sandeep Mangla [mailto:sandeep.manqla@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:22 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: File No: Vuecrest Estates/LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Hi Ms. Dolbee, I am writing this e-mail as a formal comment on the Vuecrest Estates proposal (LUA13-000642, ECF, PP). I am the homeowner of724 S 47th St, Renton WA 98055. This new subdivision will have only one access, by extending the existent Smithers Ave S dead-end, at the south end of my neighborhood. Consequently, there will be construction traffic for the year or two this subdivision is being built, following past the narrow 47th St in front ofmy home. Also, once this subdivision is built, there will be additional residential traffic for another 21 houses on the single road, past the SE186th St-102nd Ave SE intersection, which is already the only point of access for about 80 houses. Therefore, I request the proposal be modified, to create access instead from the SE 186th St -l 02nd Ave SF intersection. 1 Regards, Sandeep Mangla. 724 S 47th St, Renton, WA 98055. 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Chi Phan <lechiphan@yahoo.com> Friday, June 21, 2013 11:02 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vuecrest development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 903 S 47th St Renton, Wa 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuccrcst: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat docs not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we arc concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). \Ve understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead encl) but wc count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrcst development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrcst is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Sanh & Chi Le Sent from my iPhone 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Chi, Vanessa Dolbee Monday, June 24, 2013 10:39 AM 'Chi Phan' RE: Vuecrest development Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies ot project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa ([)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Chi Phan [mailto:lechiphan@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 11 :02 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest development Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 903 S 47th St Renton, Wa 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we arc concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrcst is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Sanh & Chi Le Sent from my iPhone 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Mark Peterson Monday, June 17, 2013 2:02 PM Vanessa Dolbee; Chip Vincent Subject: Neighborhood concerns -proposed Vuecrest subdivision Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Just a heads up on an email I received today. Mark Peterson Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator City of Renton Fire & Emergency Services Dept. 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7083 mapeterson@rentonwa.gov From: 'Jim Condelles' [mailto:jimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:34 To: Mark Peterson Cc: jimcond@hotmail.com Subject: Neighborhood concerns -proposed Vuecrest subdivision Chief, I wanted to call your attention to a proposed subdivision project in the protection area of Station 13. It is called Vuecrest and is project: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642. It is adjacent to my neighborhood, the Reserve at Stonehaven which is located roughly on S. 4 7th, S. 48th, and Burnett Ct. S. The development would extend a single access road that already serves approx. I 00 homes and will add 21 new homes into a heavily wooded area. Has the Renton Fire Department been consulted as to the issues of available water pressure to support fire fighting and sprinkler demand9 Has there been an examination of the fact that there is no turnaround planned and that the bottleneck will be risky given the number of cars already parking along the narrow streets leading into this planned division. We are opposed to it. We do not know if the city planners have consulted with the fire department on these concerns. Jim Condelles 425-226-4494 855 S. 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/news/default.aspx?id= l 922&mid=72 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Phong T. <ghengispnt@gmail.com> Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:29 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Regards Development of Vuecrest Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 1011 S. 48 1h St. Renton, WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development ofVuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road ( dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, 1 Phong Tran 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11 :45 AM 'Phong T.' Subject: RE: Regards Development of Vuecrest Phong, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa (J)o[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Phong T. [mailto:ghengispnt@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:29 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Regards Development of Vuecrest Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 1 Renton, WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we arc concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road ( 4 7th Street and I 02nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Phong Tran 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: FYI. From: Denis Law Chip Vincent Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:01 PM Vanessa Dolbee FW: FW: Neighborhood opposition to planned Vuecrest subdivision -LUA13-000642, ECF, pp Reserve at Stonehaven HOA_opposition notification to City of Renton_ Vuecrest Estates_ 6.18.13.pdf Follow up Completed Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:31 PM To: Chip Vincent; Jay B Covington Subject: FW: FW: Neighborhood opposition to planned Vuecrest subdivision -LUA13-000642, ECF, PP FYI Mayor, City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 425 430-6500 rentonwa.gov From: Reserve at Stonehaven (mailto:reserveatstonehaven@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:25 PM To: Denis Law Subject: Fwd: FW: Neighborhood opposition to planned Vuecrest subdivision -LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Dear Mayor Law and Council members, The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, a community of 36 involved families and taxpayers would like to express strong opposition and serious concerns about a proposed land use adjacent to our community. We know that as our elected representatives, it is important to you to hear from constituents about how planned development may not always be in the long-term interests of our communities, our environment or the city. The proposed development would directly impact safety, access and home values. It strains the limits of development on a single access road and may not provide for adequate water capacity or access for firefighting. It jeopardizes a large section of natural area that contains two Category I! Wetlands and a Class 4 Stream. It would result in the destruction of 360 large old growth trees in one of the last remaining sections of urban forest habitat in an area known as the Talbot Urban Separator. At risk from this project are: • Critical watershed -2 Category II Wetlands and stream compromised -project as planned would pave over and develop critical areas in wetlands buffer 1 • Old growth forest -36 .. , ees slated for destruction • Wildlife -habitat corridor to be decimated • Safety of homeowners -firefighting capability jeopardized • Unsafe access -too many homes beyond a single access chokepoint Please see the attached letter from our HOA to the official record for this project. It outlines our thoughtful concerns about our community and our environment. As part of the process, the City is considering approval of an application for "Non-significance-mitigated" status on this project. On the contrary, we believe the impact would be quite significant. Thank you for your attention to these concerns and your consideration of the impact of this project. We hope you and your staffs will consider ways to reduce the scope and scale of this proposal to better balance the needs of our neighbors and better protect the future of our remaining natural spaces. Thank you, Sincerely, The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association Bill Sebring -President Jim Condelles -Secretary Brittnee Martinez -Treasurer 2 The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association 17701 1081" Ave. SE, Box 434 Renton, WA 98055 reserveatstonehaven@g ma1 I .com Re: Neighborhood Opposition Notification Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 / 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. S. I Parcel 3123059048 June 18, 2013 r~1 r•,. ('. Ms. Vanessa Dolbee r;i:"::c;r.·;·,- Senior Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton ,.-fl ; () '.-, ,. c'; f 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Eu/1_0 /V(·; ,.·,,. -, L.IJ Dear Ms. Dolbee: The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, a community of 36 homeowners and taxpayers within Renton city limits is strongly opposed to the application for, and approval of, the project named "Vuecrest Estates" -Land Use Number LUA 13-000642, ECF, PP. May this letter serve as an official notification that we and our neighboring residents are requesting denial or limitation of this development as currently proposed. We are requesting the following: 1. Denial of the application for Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). The impact is significant and is not mitigated in the current proposal. 2. Denial or significant reduction to the scale of the project plan. We request reduction by six homes and significantly greater retention of trees and wildlife habitat than the current proposal. 3. Greatly increased scope of buffer protection around critical wetland and stream areas. 4. Denial of exceptions to distance limits for single street access for fire department response. 5. Detailed plans to mitigate traffic, parking, safety and access issues. 6. Detailed plans to assure safe fire/rescue and water main capacity which may be at current limits. We request that no further planning or development of the site proceed until these concerns are addressed and appropriate limits placed on the project. We are a community of hardworking and involved taxpayers, with home purchase prices ranging from the mid $400,000s to the low $600,000s. An adjacent development is being rushed through with many negative consequences that cannot be reversed once initiated. • The Vuecrest Estates proposal would destroy a large, old growth forest of 360 trees. It threatens a substantial critical area of wetlands and watershed, including a stream that flows into the Cedar River system --a documented habitat that is home to eagles, hawks, deer, owls, coyotes, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. This is an environmentally sensitive area and one of the remaining woodlands and wetlands in this part of Renton. Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 • According to the Washington Department of Ecology SEPA register (SEPA Number 201302811), six tracts are in sensitive areas. It is likely that six lots (home sites) are also in those sensitive areas. The proposal is simply too large for an extremely sensitive environmental area and continues to grow alarmingly in scope with each revision. • The project would be at the end of an already densely-developed dead-end one-way-out access road -jeopardizing the safety and security of our families and the property values of our homes. It adds bottlenecks, traffic and noise as well as burdens on the water main systems --with a potential flow rate which may not be sufficient for peak firefighting demand and puts at risk homeowners and the ability of fire and rescue response. We are requesting the City of Renton, King County, and state government officials to represent our interests (the current homeowners most impacted) before those of developers. Overreach and wetlands encroachment • The current proposal of 21 homes, dated 5/20/13 is significantly larger than the original plan in scope and encroachment into critical areas. • A large number of home sites planned are encroaching on wetland buffer and critical areas: o Lots 9 and 10 are in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 11 and 12 are in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 20 and 21 are in critical areas or buffer. o Portions of the proposed 1861h Place are in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 13 through 17 also appear to encroach on the critical areas buffer. • The proposed buffer is inadequate and may need to be increased significantly. Critical watershed at risk • At risk are Category II wetlands, and a stream with a deep pond for 9 months out of the year. • The proposed plat does not make provision for this water and the effects of structures and roads adjacent to it, the proper runoff or the impact to wildlife which relies upon it. Environmental disaster -360 trees to be destroyed • 90% of the old growth forest on the site will be cut down -360 trees destroyed. • The "Tree cutting and Land Clearing Plan" (dated May 20, 2013) -by the Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department's calculation -counts 401 trees on the site. • 122 trees are in critical areas or buffer but only 42 are proposed to be retained or "saved." • The proposal would "replace" hundreds of old growth trees with plants of just 2 inches in width. Wildlife habitat destruction This 400-tree wetlands and forest is a large wildlife habitat. The proposal would destroy a vital natural connector linking remaining forested habitats along the Benson Hill/Talbot Ridge region. Wildlife in this habitat: • Eagles • Coyotes • Red-tail hawks • Opossum • Owls • Doves • Deer • Rabbits • Ducks • Hummingbirds • Raccoons • Tree Frogs Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 2 Unsafe access in a bottleneck • This project is a risk to emergency access and to fire and rescue vehicle response. • There is only one access route out of this proposed community. • 115 homes or more would be served by this one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE), an excessive and potentially risky number of homes beyond a single access road (dead end). • A significantly smaller (or perhaps non-existent) turnaround area is planned. • Traffic congestion would effectively double within one year with as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in the adjacent new development, Panther Ridge) and 40 in the proposed Vuecrest development. Risk to fire response • The project does not appear to involve adding a second water main serving the area. • This is a potential concern regarding adequate water for Renton Fire Department response. In summary, we believe there are grounds to amend the scale and scope of this proposal. We request the elimination of planned homes, roads, structures and developments that encroach on critical areas and request expansion of protection to recognized wetlands prior to any approvals. We ask the City to postpone action until the legitimate concerns outlined above are addressed. Please forward at the earliest convenience all documentation, permits, reviews and studies needed to analyze this project's environmental impacts, including: Critical Areas Report, Supplemental Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Storm Water Report, Wetlands Assessment and Drainage Report as well as the application document. Please also provide the relevant City of Renton SEPA ordinances and other guidance used in this application. Please forward documentation of your consultation with other agencies, including the Renton Fire Department and other first responders as to additional impacts from this proposed development. Please also provide any Environmental Impact Statements as well as detailed reports on all mitigation measures to reduce the likely impacts to each element of the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods so that we can assess whether further mitigation is required to prevent harm. We reserve the right to request additional studies as the process progresses. These are serious concerns from serious people. We hope the City will take this into consideration. Sincerely, The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association Bill Sebring, President bill.edward@yar,oo.com Jim Condelles, Secretary iimcond@hotmail.com Brittnee Martinez, Treasurer brittneeb2l 7@gmail.co Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 3 +-' C: ·-c;_; ' 0 a. (l) .:.::: 0 .c: u "'C 0 0 .c: ... 0 .0 .c: b.O ·-(l) C: "'C C: ra ' VI +-' ·-E VI VI (l) u u ra ' ra (l) ... ra ra u ·-+-' ·;:: u ' (l) a. 0 u VI +-' u (l) i ..... 0 ... a. +-' VI (l) ... u (l) ::I > Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11 :59 AM 'Reserve at Stonehaven' Subject: RE: Party of Record Notification_Reserve at Stonehaven HOA_reference Vuecrest LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Reserve at Stonehave HOA Board, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, 1 encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa (J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 From: Reserve at Stonehaven [mailto:reserveatstonehaven@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:31 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Bill and Lynn Sebring; Jim and Christina Condelles; Michael and Brittnee Martinez Subject: Party of Record Notification_Reserve at Stonehaven HOA_reference Vuecrest LUA13-000642, ECF, PP June 18, 2013 Dear Ms. Dolbee, Attached please find an official letter of notification from the Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, representing 36 homeowners adjacent to the proposed Vuccrest subdivision. We with to be listed as a Party of Record for this development and to document our areas of concern to be addressed as part of the due process of Development Authorization. Please see attached 4-page PDF file. Thank you, 1 Reserve at Stonehaven HOA Board Bill Sebring Jim Condelles Bri ttnee Martinez 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: June 18, 2013 Dear Ms. Dolbee, Reserve at Stonehaven <reserveatstonehaven@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:31 PM Vanessa Dolbee Bill and Lynn Sebring; Jim and Christina Condelles; Michael and Brittnee Martinez Party of Record Notification_Reserve at Stonehaven HOA_reference Vuecrest LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Reserve at Stonehaven HOA_opposition notification to City of Renton_ Vuecrest Estates_ 6.18.13.pdf Attached please find an official letter of notification from the Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association. representing 36 homeowners adjacent to the proposed Vuecrest subdivision. We with to be listed as a Party of Record for this development and to document our areas of concern to be addressed as part of the due process of Development Authorization. Please see attached 4-page PDF file. Thank you, Reserve at Stonehaven HOA Board Bill Sebring Jim Condelles Brittnee Martinez 1 The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association 17701 10s'" Ave. SE, Box 434 Renton, WA 980S5 reserveatstonehaven@g ma i I. com Re: Neighborhood Opposition Notification Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 / 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. S. I Parcel 3123059048 June 18, 2013 Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Dolbee: The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, a community of 36 homeowners and taxpayers within Renton city limits is strongly opposed to the application for, and approval of, the project named "Vuecrest Estates" -Land Use Number LUA 13-000642, ECF, PP. May this letter serve as an official notification that we and our neighboring residents are requesting denial or limitation of this development as currently proposed. We are requesting the following: 1. Denial of the application for Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). The impact is significant and is not mitigated in the current proposal. 2. Denial or significant reduction to the scale of the project plan. We request reduction by six homes and significantly greater retention of trees and wildlife habitat than the current proposal. 3. Greatly increased scope of buffer protection around critical wetland and stream areas. 4. Denial of exceptions to distance limits for single street access for fire department response. 5. Detailed plans to mitigate traffic, parking, safety and access issues. 6. Detailed plans to assure safe fire/rescue and water main capacity which may be at current limits. We request that no further planning or development of the site proceed until these concerns are addressed and appropriate limits placed on the project. We are a community of hardworking and involved taxpayers, with home purchase prices ranging from the mid $400,000s to the low $600,000s. An adjacent development is being rushed through with many negative consequences that cannot be reversed once initiated. • The Vuecrest Estates proposal would destroy a large, old growth forest of 360 trees. It threatens a substantial critical area of wetlands and watershed, including a stream that flows into the Cedar River system --a documented habitat that is home to eagles, hawks, deer, owls, coyotes, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. This is an environmentally sensitive area and one of the remaining woodlands and wetlands in this part of Renton. Reserve at Stonehaven HOA-Opposition to LUA13-000642 • According to the Washington Department of Ecology SEPA register (SEPA Number 201302811), six tracts are in sensitive areas. It is likely that six lots (home sites) are also in those sensitive areas. The proposal is simply too large for an extremely sensitive environmental area and continues to grow alarmingly in scope with each revision. • The project would be at the end of an already densely-developed dead-end one-way-out access road -jeopardizing the safety and security of our families and the property values of our homes. It adds bottlenecks, traffic and noise as well as burdens on the water main systems --with a potential flow rate which may not be sufficient for peak firefighting demand and puts at risk homeowners and the ability of fire and rescue response. We are requesting the City of Renton, King County, and state government officials to represent our interests (the current homeowners most impacted) before those of developers. Overreach and wetlands encroachment • The current proposal of 21 homes, dated 5/20/13 is significantly larger than the original plan in scope and encroachment into critical areas. • A large number of home sites planned are encroaching on wetland buffer and critical areas: o Lots 9 and 10 are in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 11 and 12 are in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 20 and 21 are in critical areas or buffer. o Portions of the proposed 1861h Place are in critical areas or buffer. o Lots 13 through 17 also appear to encroach on the critical areas buffer. • The proposed buffer is inadequate and may need to be increased significantly. Critical watershed at risk • At risk are Category II wetlands and a stream with a deep pond for 9 months out of the year. • The proposed plat does not make provision for this water and the effects of structures and roads adjacent to it, the proper runoff or the impact to wildlife which relies upon it. Environmental disaster -360 trees to be destroyed • 90% of the old growth forest on the site will be cut down -360 trees destroyed. • The "Tree cutting and Land Clearing Plan" (dated May 20, 2013) -by the Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department's calculation -counts 401 trees on the site. • 122 trees are in critical areas or buffer but only 42 are proposed to be retained or "saved." • The proposal would "replace" hundreds of old growth trees with plants of just 2 inches in width. Wildlife habitat destruction This 400-tree wetlands and forest is a large wildlife habitat. The proposal would destroy a vital natural connector linking remaining forested habitats along the Benson Hill/Talbot Ridge region. Wildlife in this habitat: • Eagles • Coyotes • Red-tail hawks • Opossum • Owls • Doves • Deer • Rabbits • Ducks • Hummingbirds • Raccoons • Tree Frogs Reserve at Stonehaven HOA-Opposition to LUA13-000642 2 Unsafe access in a bottleneck • This project is a risk to emergency access and to fire and rescue vehicle response. • There is only one access route out of this proposed community. • llS homes or more would be served by this one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE), an excessive and potentially risky number of homes beyond a single access road (dead end). • A significantly smaller (or perhaps non-existent) turnaround area is planned. • Traffic congestion would effectively double within one year with as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in the adjacent new development, Panther Ridge) and 40 in the proposed Vuecrest development. Risk to fire response • The project does not appear to involve adding a second water main serving the area. • This is a potential concern regarding adequate water for Renton Fire Department response. In summary, we believe there are grounds to amend the scale and scope of this proposal. We request the elimination of planned homes, roads, structures and developments that encroach on critical areas and request expansion of protection to recognized wetlands prior to any approvals. We ask the City to postpone action until the legitimate concerns outlined above are addressed. Please forward at the earliest convenience all documentation, permits, reviews and studies needed to analyze this project's environmental impacts, including: Critical Areas Report, Supplemental Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Storm Water Report, Wetlands Assessment and Drainage Report as well as the application document. Please also provide the relevant City of Renton SEPA ordinances and other guidance used in this application. Please forward documentation of your consultation with other agencies, including the Renton Fire Department and other first responders as to additional impacts from this proposed development. Please also provide any Environmental Impact Statements as well as detailed reports on all mitigation measures to reduce the likely impacts to each element of the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods so that we can assess whether further mitigation is required to prevent harm. The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association reserves the right to request additional studies as the process progresses. These are serious concerns from serious people. We trust the City will take these into consideration. Sincerely, Bill Sebring, President, The Reserve at Stonehaven HOA Jim Condelles, Secretary, The Reserve at Stonehaven HOA Brittnee Martinez, Treasurer, The Reserve at Stonehaven HOA bill.edward@yahoo.com iimcond@hotmail.com brittneeb2l 7@gmail.com Reserve at Stone haven HOA -Oppos1t1on to LUA 13-000642 Proposed Vuecrest project threatens: • Critical watershed -Category II wetlands and stream compromised • Old growth forest -360 trees slated for destruction • Wildlife -habitat corridor to be decimated • Safety of homeowners -firefighting capability jeopardized • Unsafe access -too many homes beyond a single access chokepoint Vuecrest project scope, critical area, access limits and neighborhood choke point Reserve at Storiehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-000642 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Darshan, Vanessa Dolbee Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:05 PM 'Darshan Malhi' RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa (J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Darshan Malhi [mailto:darshanmalhilOO@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:43 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee(a,.rentonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 4712 Burnett Ct. S., Renton WA 98055 I request that I be added a Party of Record for the pro po, ___ development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. Z) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single :iccess road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Darshan Malhi 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Darshan Malhi <darshanmalhi1 OO@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:43 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 4712 Burnett Ct. S., Renton WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. Z) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. 1 Sincerely, Darshan Malhi 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Kuldeep, Vanessa Dolbee Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:06 PM 'Kuldeep Natt' RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa (J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Kuldeep Natt [mailto:kuldeepnatt@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:52 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonchaven and my address is: 866 s 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Pawandecp Natt and Kuldeep Natt 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Kuldeep Natt <kuldeepnatt@yahoo.com> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:52 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, 1 am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 866 s 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced !lbove. I hllve the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire _vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we arc concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuccrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Pawandeep Natt and Kuldeep Natt 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:08 PM 'GHunt360@comcast.net' Subject: RE: Opposition to proposed development of Vuecrest Gloria, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa <Do[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 From: GHunt360@comcast.net [mailto:GHunt360@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:02 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Opposition to proposed development of Vuecrest Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, 1 I am a homeowner in the L-~erve at Stonehaven and my ad~. ess is: 4727 Burnett Ct. S, Renton, WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Furthermore, the record should reflect that on my property, on lot five in The Reserve at Stonehaven, signage is posted on the fence that states: "Native Growth Protection Area. This wetland and upland buffer are protected to provide wildlife habitat and maintain water quality. Please do not disturb this valuable resource." The Vuccrest proposed development would be in complete violation of this signagc and half of the wetland property behind my home would include housing. Restriction to protect this area and our environment must be maintained and enforced. I find it also interesting that our HOA had a large dead tree removed in this wetland area just a few months ago, with permission from the City of Renton, because of the risk of it falling and damaging a home during a severe wind storm. We were required to plant a tree next to it as a replacement, which the IIOA did so in compliance. To receive information of this development such a few months later appears to be in conflict with both the signage on my property and the requirements of the City of Renton. I ask for your careful review of these concerns. 2 Thank you for your consic._ ___ 1tion of these issues. Respectfully, Gloria L. Hunter 3 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: GHunt360@comcast.net Tuesday, June 18, 20131002 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Opposition to proposed development of Vuecrest Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 4727 Burnett Ct. S, Renton, WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuccrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road ( dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecre-.. s too large for this environme, .. , . .ly sensitive area. Furthermore, the record should reflect that on my property, on lot five in The Reserve at Stonehaven, signage is posted on the fence that states: "Native Growth Protection Area. This wetland and upland buffer are protected to provide wildlife habitat and maintain water quality. Please do not disturb this valuable resource." The Vuecrest proposed development would be in complete violation of this signagc and half of the wetland property behind my home would include housing. Restriction to protect this area and our environment must be maintained and enforced. I find it also interesting that our HOA had a large dead tree removed in this wetland area just a few months ago, with permission from the City of Renton, because of the risk of it falling and damaging a home during a severe wind storm. We were required to plant a tree next to it as a replacement, which the HOA did so in compliance. To receive information of this development such a few months later appears to be in conflict with both the signage on my property and the requirements of the City of Renton. I ask for your careful review of these conce1·ns. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Respectfully, Gloria L. Hunter 2 ·, Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Vanessa Dolbee Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:29 PM 'David Rasmussen' Subject: RE: Party of Record Notification -Vucrest Estates LUA 13-000642, ECF, PP David, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa (J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: David Rasmussen [mailto:dr2l4l@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:14 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Rebecca Evers Subject: Party of Record Notification -Vucrest Estates LUAB-000642, ECF, PP Ms. Dolbee, Please find the attached notification for Party of Record status for the Subject proposed development. Sundance HOA looks forward to participating in the due process of the subject development. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and the content letter herein. Thank you, David Rasmussen -President Sundance at Talbot Ridge Home Owners Association 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Ms. Dolbee, David Rasmussen <dr2141@earthlink.net> Monday, June 17, 2013 7:14 PM Vanessa Dolbee Rebecca Evers Party of Record Notification -Vucrest Estates LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Sundance HOA Party of Record Notification Rev_.docx Follow up Flagged Please find the attached notification for Party of Record status for the Subject proposed development. Sundance HOA looks forward to participating in the due process of the subject development. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and the content letter herein. Thank you, David Rasmussen -President Sundance at Talbot Ridge Home Owners Association 1 To: The City of Renton -Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA. 98057 Attn: Vanessa Dolbee vdolbee@rentonwa.gov 425-430-7314 From: David N. Rasmussen -President Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47'h St Renton, WA. 98055 dr2l41@_yahoo.com 206-245-5475 Subject: Party of Record Notification to Vuecrest LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Development 17 June 2013 The following is to notify the City that the Sundance HOA desires to be listed as a Party of Record to the Subject Vuecrest Development and to document areas of concern we wish to have addressed as part of the due process of Development Authorization. The plat has been granted an exception to the usual city policy regarding fire department access. We understand the currently established rule to be that in a single-family residential zone there is usually a distance limit on single street access of 500 feet. Exceptions can be granted to 700 feet if all homes more than 500 feet from the single street access have sprinklers. Another exception can be granted if the street width is expanded to allow for faster fire vehicle access. Sundance at Talbot Ridge was granted an exception to the distance rule as both the road was widened and all homes have sprinklers. The furthest house in Sundance is about 1,700 feet from the single access road. The furthest residence in Vuecrest from the single street access will be approximately 2,325 feet. 1) We ask that the Hearing Examiner provide sufficient detailed justification of the distance variance granted or if justification cannot be provided then we ask that the as designed additional access road directly between 102'' Ave SE and the Subject development be recuired. 2) We ask the Hearing Examiner to direct that further mitigation be investigated as required to address the estimated street access required Additionally, we ask that the Hearing Examiner consider the following concerns of Sundance HOA with respect to a single entrance through our development to gain access to the Subject development: 1) The fire department exception for distance may be excessive, especiall'{ as S 47th street often • has cars parked on both sides of the street limiting fire vehicle response time and access, especially during holiday periods where cars can be parked on both sides of the road restricting access even further. 2) The temporary/permanent turnaround in the proposed development is significantly smaller than the existing current turnaround. This poses a hazard to fire vehicle access, particularly a ladder truck. 3) There is no rule or definition regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road. By our count there will be about 115 existing homes beyond the single road serving the area. At maximum build out there could be as many as 135 homes beyond the choke point. What count does the City consider a maximum for safe access? 4) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area. This could be an issue during the peak water flows required during a fire response. The single main may not deliver enough fire flow after the potential demand created by all of the homes that might be served by the main at full build out. The flow rate may not be sufficient to serve the required fire suppression sprinklers required in the structures. We ask that the peak water flow requirements be analyzed to determine suitability for the proposed development. 5) There are three lots and portions of the proposed SE 186'h Pl. that intrude into the wetland setback areas. Intrusion into the protected zones may be excessive for a relatively small plat. Reducing the number of structures and relocation of the proposed SE 186'h Pl would reduce or eliminate the unnecessary reduction of protected areas. 6) Further study of the unique hydrology of the area may be required. There is a surface water seep that drains over the existing turnaround area for 9 or 10 months of the year. The proposed plat appears to make no provision for this water that will degrade some of the proposed impervious surface and may threaten some of the proposed structures. The wet area may actually be an extension of the existing, recognized wetland in the east portion of the plat and should be carefully reviewed before the plat is approved to determine if additional protection of the possible wetland is required. The Sundance HOA wishes to understand the Environmental and Fire Access variances granted the Subject development and we look forward to participating in the legally required proceedings. Signed, Signed copy on file Sundance HOA David Rasmussen Date President -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Signed cony on file Sundance HOA Steve Yantorni Date Treasurer -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA 5if;;ned cony on fife Sundance HOA Rebecca Evers Date Secretary -Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:44 AM 'Jim Condelles' Cc: Subject: Attachments: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns 20130613095317765. pdf Jim Condelles, Thank you for your comments, you will be added to the party of record list for this project and will receive copies of all city correspondence as well and decisions on the project. Your comments will be placed in the project's official file and be taken into consideration by the Hearing Examiner and the Environmental Review Committee when making a decision on the subject project. To address some of your questions below; the application has proposed to develop the subject site and not beyond the identified site/property lines. The reason you may have seen people surveying beyond the property lines is because, the City requires the applicant to submit map materials that show trees and critical areas beyond the property boundaries. This is so the City can understand what critical areas may be off-site that need buffer protection on- site. The same is true for the tree inventory, if there is a tree near the property edge that is not on the site, the developer is required to protect this tree during construction. Therefore we require a survey to extend outside the property boundaries. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the tree plan and the proposed landscaping plan for you to review. Please remember you are welcome to come into City Hall and look at the project file, which contains large format maps which may be easier to read. Again, thank you for taking the time to comment as your comments are an important part of the decision making process. Please let me know if you have any further questions. 'Vanessa <Do{5ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Jim Condelles [mailto:jimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10: 18 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Subject: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Hi Vanessa, I would like to be a party of record to this land use. I have received some material and also seen the posted signs and plat map. 1 As a board member ofthe Reserve at Stonehaven I want to express my deep concerns about the plan. I know that our neighboring Sundance HOA shares the same concerns. i am copying fellow Stonehaven board members on this email as well. A number of concerns arise including the addition of 20+ homes in an area that has only one access road out. The added traffic and noise, including cars turning around all hours of the night and day are concerning as well as some of our homes will be directly abutting this area. There are also concerns related to fire department access. Alarming to us all is the proposal to decimate the wetlands area and destroy approximately 360 trees and wetlands habitat that is the home to deer, owls, coyotes, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. According to the plat map it appears that several lots and portions of the extended SE 186th Place will intrude into the wetland setback areas. This seems excessive given the small plat. We are proposing reducing the scope of the development and eliminating those homes that are placed on top of the wetlands protected area. I want to be clear that we expect the property lines to be carefully respected. The Reserve at Stonehaven has a wetlands tract and I am greatly concerned about incursion into that, accidental or otherwise, during this process. In addition, neighbor Joe MacKenzie reports that survey crews entered his property and tagged trees on his property. This cannot happen. We would like a detailed report about which trees are going to be removed, so that we can be assured they are not taking wetlands or trees from our HOA tract, and we would like a report on how the wetlands and large watershed will be protected --given that large areas of that watershed will now be built up and eliminated. We would strongly recommend extension of the existing, recognized wetland in this area, beginning with scaling down the plan to eliminate the two or three homes sitting on top of the wetlands area. This wetlands area by the way is a lake for 9-10 months out of the year. The proposed plat doesn't appear to make any provision for this water and the effects of building up structures and roads adjacent to it. These are all serious concerns we hope the City will take into consideration. Thank you for your time, Jim Condelles 855 5. 48th Street Renton,WA 98055 425-226-4494 206-769-6310 jimcond@hotmail.com 2 From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com Subject: Schneider land use Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:07:38 +0000 Jim, I have been out ofthe office for the past week and have followed your e-mail chain regarding the subject pre- application and the large land use signs posted near your home. I was hoping to give you a call to talk about the signs, however I do not have your phone number. Please give me a call at your convenience and we can talk about your concerns. Thank you, 'Vanessa (J)o[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 3 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Ginny, Vanessa Dolbee Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:46 AM 'ginnyknox@comcast.net' RE: Land Use LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Vuecrest Estates Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa <Do{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: ginnyknox@comcast.net [mailto:ginnyknox@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:21 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Land Use LUAB-000642, ECF, PP Vuecrest Estates Hello, I live right below this proposed project in the Campen Spring Condominiums. I have lived here for almost seven years, and I always get nervous when there is a strong wind or rain, because the hillside is so steep. I envision a massive mudslide coming down into my home. I am thankful there are so many trees holding the hill in place. With this proposal, they plan to remove 90% of the trees! They also speak about removing 3400 c.y. of dirt and adding in over 10,000 c.y. of fill dirt. I picture all that dirt coming down the hill. I have included some photos showing how steep the hill is. I am sure there have been studies done to say that won't happen. I hope the City of Renton will 1 protect our existing homes from potential disaster. I would like to be added to the list to receive information on this proposal. Thank you! Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave. S. #SS202 Renton, WA 98055 425-301-9901 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello, ginnyknox@comcast.net Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:21 PM Vanessa Dolbee Land Use LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Vuecrest Estates Hillside1 .jpg; Hillside2.jpg Follow up Flagged I live right below this proposed project in the Campen Spring Condominiums. I have lived here for almost seven years, and I always get nervous when there is a strong wind or rain, because the hillside is so steep. I envision a massive mudslide coming down into my home. I am thankful there are so many trees holding the hill in place. With this proposal, they plan to remove 90% of the trees! They also speak about removing 3400 c.y. of dirt and adding in over 10,000 c.y. of fill dirt. I picture all that dirt coming down the hill. I have included some photos showing how steep the hill is. I am sure there have been studies done to say that won't happen. I hope the City of Renton will protect our existing homes from potential disaster. I would like to be added to the list to receive information on this proposal. Thank you! Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave. S. #SS202 Renton, WA 98055 425-301-9901 1 • Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Jim, Vanessa Dolbee Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:01 AM 'Jim Condelles' RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns I will include your comments in the following e-mail as a part of the official record. As you know, we appreciate you taking the time to comment on the project, as you and your neighbor's comments play an important role in the City's decision making process. At the end of your e-mail, you state "they ought never have been approved" referring to the lots in the wetland buffer. Please note, nothing has been approved at this time, the plans that are in the application file, is what the applicant has requested the City review. As I mentioned earlier, your comments and the public hearing play an important role in the decision making process, and I encourage you to attend the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. 'Vanessa <Dor6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Jim Condelles [mailto:jimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:03 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Thank you Vanessa, for the documents. You have been very helpful and informative. FYI, Lots 11 and 12 are particularly alarming on the plan as they are right on top of the watershed and the protected wetlands area. Additionally it is unclear what is at the end of the road and whether there will be a turnaround or whether there will be fencing so people don't simply hike into the woods which are on private property. I continue to be fascinated with the assumption from the planners that this road is going to some day be continuing through to the east. Our two HOAs may be looking into what actions we can take to stall, or limit this project without some modifications forthcoming in the plan. Clearly the homes encroaching on the wetlands are going to be an issue for our neighbors to challenge. They ought never have been approved in our opinion. Would the city consider asking the developer to scale down the scope and remove those lots? Jim Condelles jimcond@hotmail.com From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com CC: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Subject: RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:44:07 +0000 Jim Condelles, Thank you for your comments, you will be added to the party of record list for this project and will receive copies of all city correspondence as well and decisions on the project. Your comments will be placed in the project's official file and be taken into consideration by the Hearing Examiner and the Environmental Review Committee when making a decision on the subject project. To address some of your questions below; the application has proposed to develop the subject site and not beyond the identified site/property lines. The reason you may have seen people surveying beyond the property lines is because, the' City requires the applicant to submit map materials that show trees and critical areas beyond the property boundaries. This is so the City can understand what critical areas may be off-site that need buffer protection on- site. The same is true for the tree inventory, if there is a tree near the property edge that is not on the site, the developer is required to protect this tree during construction. Therefore we require a survey to extend outside the property boundaries. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the tree plan and the proposed landscaping plan for you to review. Please remember you are welcome to come into City Hall and look at the project file, which contains large format maps which may be easier to read. Again, thank you for taking the time to comment as your comments are an important part of the decision making process. Please let me know if you have any further questions. 'Vanessa (J)of6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Jim Condelles [mailto:jimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:18 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Subject: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Hi Vanessa, 2 I would like to be a party of reco o this land use. I have received some :erial and also seen the posted signs and plat map. As a board member of the Reserve at Stonehaven I want to express my deep concerns about the plan. I know that our neighboring Sundance HOA shares the same concerns. i am copying fellow Stonehaven board members on this email as well. A number of concerns arise including the addition of 20+ homes in an area that has only one access road out. The added traffic and noise, including cars turning around all hours of the night and day are concerning as well as some of our homes will be directly abutting this area. There are also concerns related to fire department access. Alarming to us all is the proposal to decimate the wetlands area and destroy approximately 360 trees and wetlands habitat that is the home to deer, owls, coyotes, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. According to the plat map it appears that several lots and portions of the extended SE 186th Place will intrude into the wetland setback areas. This seems excessive given the small plat. We are proposing reducing the scope of the development and eliminating those homes that are placed on top of the wetlands protected area. I want to be clear that we expect the property lines to be carefully respected. The Reserve at Stonehaven has a wetlands tract and I am greatly concerned about incursion into that, accidental or otherwise, during this process. In addition, neighbor Joe MacKenzie reports that survey crews entered his property and tagged trees on his property. This cannot happen. We would like a detailed report about which trees are going to be removed, so that we can be assured they are not taking wetlands or trees from our HOA tract, and we would like a report on how the wetlands and large watershed will be protected --given that large areas of that watershed will now be built up and eliminated. We would strongly recommend extension of the existing, recognized wetland in this area, beginning with scaling down the plan to eliminate the two or three homes sitting on top of the wetlands area. This wetlands area by the way is a lake for 9-10 months out of the year. The proposed plat doesn't appear to make any provision for this water and the effects of building up structures and roads adjacent to it. These are all serious concerns we hope the City will take into consideration. Thank you for your time, Jim Condelles 855 S. 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 425-226-4494 206-769-6310 jimcond@hotmail.com 3 From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com Subject: Schneider land use Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:07:38 +0000 Jim, I have been out of the office for the past week and have followed your e-mail chain regarding the subject pre- application and the large land use signs posted near your home. I was hoping to give you a call to talk about the signs, however I do not have your phone number. Please give me a call at your convenience and we can talk about your concerns. Thank you, 'Vanessa <Do{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 4 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Jim Condelles <jimcond@hotmail.com> Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:03 PM Vanessa Dolbee RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Follow up Flagged Thank you Vanessa, for the documents. You have been very helpful and informative. FYI, Lots 11 and 12 are particularly alarming on the plan as they are right on top of the watershed and the protected wetlands area. Additionally it is unclear what is at the end of the road and whether there will be a turnaround or whether there will be fencing so people don't simply hike into the woods which are on private property. I continue to be fascinated with the assumption from the planners that this road is going to some day be continuing through to the east. Our two HOAs may be looking into what actions we can take to stall, or limit this project without some modifications forthcoming in the plan. Clearly the homes encroaching on the wetlands are going to be an issue for our neighbors to challenge. They ought never have been approved in our opinion. Would the city consider asking the developer to scale down the scope and remove those lots? Jim Conde lies jimcond@hotmail.com From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com CC: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Subject: RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:44:07 +0000 Jim Condelles, Thank you for your comments, you will be added to the party of record list for this project and will receive copies of ail city correspondence as well and decisions on the project. Your comments will be placed in the project's official file ar:d be taken into consideration by the Hearing Examiner and the Environmental Review Committee when making a decision on the subject project. To address some of your questions below; the application has proposed to develop the subject site and not beyond the identified site/property lines. The reason you may have seen people surveying beyond the property lines is because, the City requires the applicant to submit map materials that show trees and critical areas beyond the property boundaries. This is so the City can understand what critical areas may be off-site that need buffer protection on- site. The same is true for the tree inventory, if there is a tree near the property edge that is not on the site, the developer is required to protect this tree during construction. Therefore we require a survey to extend outside the property boundaries. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the tree plan and the proposed landscaping plan for you to review. Please remember you are welcome to come into City Hall and look at the project file, which contains large format maps which may be easier to read. 1 Again, thank you for taking the timL comment as your comments are an imp process. Please let me know if you have any further questions. 'Vanessa (J)o[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Jim Condelles [mailto:jimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10: 18 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Subject: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Hi Vanessa, nt part of the decision making I would like to be a party of record to this land use. I have received some material and also seen the posted signs and plat map. As a board member of the Reserve at Stonehaven I want to express my deep concerns about the plan. I know that our neighboring Sundance HOA shares the same concerns. i am copying fellow Stonehaven board members on this email as well. A number of concerns arise including the addition of 20+ homes in an area that has only one access road out. The added traffic and noise, including cars turning around all hours of the night and day are concerning as well as some of our homes will be directly abutting this area. There are also concerns related to fire department access. Alarming to us all is the proposal to decimate the wetlands area and destroy approximately 360 trees and wetlands habitat that is the home to deer, owls, coyotes, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. According to the plat map it appears that several lots and portions of the extended SE 186th Place will intrude into the wetland setback areas. This seems excessive given the small plat. We are proposing reducing the scope of the development and eliminating those homes that are placed on top of the wetlands protected area. I want to be clear that we expect the property lines to be carefully respected. The Reserve at Stonehaven has a wetlands tract and I am greatly concerned about incursion into that, accidental or otherwise, during this process. In addition, neighbor Joe MacKenzie reports that survey crews entered his property and tagged trees on his property. This cannot happen. We would like a detailed report about which trees are going to be removed, so that we can be assured they are not taking wetlands or trees from our HOA tract, and we would like a report on how the wetlands and 2 large watershed will be protecte eliminated. given that large areas of that waters will now be built up and We would strongly recommend extension of the existing, recognized wetland in this area, beginning with scaling down the plan to eliminate the two or three homes sitting on top of the wetlands area. This wetlands area by the way is a lake for 9-10 months out of the year. The proposed plat doesn't appear to make any provision for this water and the effects of building up structures and roads adjacent to it. These are all serious concerns we hope the City will take into consideration. Thank you for your time, Jim Condelles 855 S. 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 425-226-4494 206-769-6310 jimcond@hotmail.com From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com Subject: Schneider land use Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:07:38 +0000 Jim, I have been out of the office for the past week and have followed your e-mail chain regarding the subject pre- application and the large land use signs posted near your home. I was hoping to give you a call to talk about the signs, however I do not have your phone number. Please give me a call at your convenience and we can talk about your concerns. Thank you, Vanessa <Do(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 3 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:04 AM 'Pak Ming Chiu' Subject: RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Pak Ming Chiu, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Pak Ming Chiu [mailto:pakmingchiu@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:19 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 I am a homeowner in Reserve at Stonehaven, address: 902 S. 48th Street, Renton. I wish to be a party of record for the above consruction development. My concerns are as follows: We have an immediate concern about the proposed Vuecrest housing development below us (South of Sundance and West of Stonehaven). The plan includes building twenty-one new homes by next year possibly without addressing some of the concerns described below. The Sundance development of 18 homes is also concerned and both HOAs are submitting a protest letter to the City of Renton. The City's deadline for responding to this development plan is next Friday, June 21, 2013. In addition to the Sundance and Stonehaven HOAs submitting their letters, we hope to have all of our individual homeowners email the City right away! The more letters and e-mails we send to the City, the greater chance we have of being taken seriously about our concerns which include the following: 1) There is only one access route out of the new Vue crest development, possibly limiting fire vehicle response time. 1 2) The plat do ot appear to include a second water 1n serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for fire department response. 3) There is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road but we count there will be 115 homes being served by one two-lane road! (47'h Street and 102'' SE). 4) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). 5) Encroachment on wetlands area: Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Pak Ming Chiu <pakmingchiu@yahoo.com> Friday, June 14, 2013 3: 19 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I am a homeowner in Reserve at Stonehaven, address: 902 S. 48th Street, Renton. I wish to be a party of record for the above cons ruction development My concerns are as follows: We have an immediate concern about the proposed Vuecrest housing development below us (South of Sundance and West of Stonehaven). The plan includes building twenty-one new homes by next year possibly without addressing some of the concerns described below. The Sundance development of 18 homes is also concerned and both HOAs are submitting a protest letter to the City of Renton. The City's deadline for responding to this development plan is next Friday, June 21, 2013. In addition to the Sundance and Stonehaven HOAs submitting their letters, we hope to have all of our individual homeowners email the City right away! The more letters and e-mails we send to the City, the greater chance we have of being taken seriously about our concerns which include the following: 1) There is only one access route out of the new Vuecrest development, possibly limiting fire vehicle response time. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for fire department response. 3) There is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road but we count there will be 115 homes being served by one two-lane road! (47'" Street and 102°' SE). 4) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). 5) Encroachment on wetlands area: Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:05 AM 'Hanh Tran' Subject: RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Hanh, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Hanh Tran [mailto:vdn0610@hotmaiLcom] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:51 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 I would be like to be a Party of Record for: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642. I'm a homeowner in Stonehaven at 861 S. 48th ST., Renton, 98055. I would like to address my concerns about the proposed Vuecrest housing development below Stonehaven development. The concerns which include the following: 1. There is only one access route out of the new Vuecrest development, POSSIBLE LIMITING FIRE VEHICLE RESPONSE TIME. 2. The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and WE ARE CONCERNED REGARDING ADEQUATE WATER FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE. 1 3. There is no rule regarding the mber of homes beyond the single ac ___ (dead end) road but we count THERE WILL BE 115 HOMES BEING SERVED BY ONE TWO-LANE ROAD! (47th St. and 102nd SE). 4. TRAFFIC CONGESTION will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). 5. ENCROACHMENT ON WETLANDS AREA. Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also more than 400 tress will be cut down for the new development. Thank you, Hanh Tran 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hanh Tran <vdn061 O@hotmail.com> Friday, June 14, 2013 3:51 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Follow up Flagged I would be like to be a Party of Record for: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642. I'm a homeowner in Stonehaven at 861 S. 48th ST., Renton, 98055. I would like to address my concerns about the proposed Vuecrest housing development below Stonehaven development. The concerns which include the following: 1. There is only one access route out of the new Vuecrest development, POSSIBLE LIMITING FIRE VEHICLE RESPONSE TIME. 2. The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and WE ARE CONCERNED REGARDING ADEQUATE WATER FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE. 3. There is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access (dead end) road but we count THERE WILL BE 115 HOMES BEING SERVED BY ONE TWO-LANE ROAD! (47th St. and 102nd SE). 4. TRAFFIC CONGESTION will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). 5. ENCROACHMENT ON WETLANDS AREA. Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also more than 400 tress will be cut down for the new development. Thank you, Hanh Tran 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: Brittnee Martinez <brittneeb217@gmail.com> Friday, June 14, 2013 8:58 AM To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Vanessa, Vanessa Dolbee william sebring; Jim Condelles Vuecreast Development Follow up Completed We would like to be officially added to the party ofrecord for Vuecreast LUA 13-00042 development. We have multiple concerns about the proposed plat. • -The encroachment on the wetlands • -Number of trees that would be cleared from the property and the surrounding properties for this development • . Increased traffic congestion • -The single access road to the development • -With only a single access road to the development, this could limit the ability of emergency vehicle response • . The plat not having a second water main serving the area therefore increasing the possibility that there would not be an adequate water supply in the event of a fire Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S. 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 brittneeb217@gmail.com 425-306-3244 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:03 AM 'Brittnee Martinez' Subject: RE: Vuecreast Development Brittnee, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Brittnee Martinez [mailto:brittneeb2l7@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:58 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: william Sebring; Jim Condelles Subject: Vuecreast Development Hi Vanessa, We would like to be officially added to the party of record for Vuecreasl LUA 13-00042 development. We have multiple concerns about the proposed plat. • -The encroachment on the wetlands • -Number of trees that would be cleared from the property and the surrounding properties for this development 1 • -Increased traffic congestior • -The single access road to the development • -With only a single access road to the development, this could limit the ability of emergency vehicle response • . The plat not having a second water main serving the area therefore increasing the possibility that there would not be an adequate water supply in the event of a fire Michael & Brittnee Martinez 90 I S. 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 brittneeb2 I 7@gmail.com 425-306-3244 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:24 AM 'Bill Edward' Subject: RE: Concerns Re Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 William, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa (J)o[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Bill Edward [mailto:bill.edward@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:54 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Concerns Re Vuecrest LUA13-000642 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbeem~rcntonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 4706 Burnett Ct. S., Renton, WA 98055 1 I request that I be added a Party of Record for the propo--d development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, William E. Sebring 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Bill Edward <bill.edward@yahoo.com> Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:54 PM Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Concerns Re Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee@.rentonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 4706 Burnett Ct. S., Renton, WA 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than . _ 0 trees will be cut down for th cw development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, William E. Sebring 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Thu Bui, Vanessa Dolbee Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:22 AM 'Thu' RE: Vuecrest concern Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa (J)o[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Thu [mailto:THU 9805588@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:30 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest concern Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is 4709 Burnett ct s Renton wa 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development ofVuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ri<lgc that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dea<l end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Thu Bui Sent from my iPhone 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Thu <THU_9805588@yahoo.com> Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:30 PM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest concern Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehavcn and my address is 4709 Burnett ct s Renton wa 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuccrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrcst development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrcst development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrcst is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Thu Bui Sent from my iPhone 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:21 AM 'tasnim khalil' Subject: RE: KHALIL RESIDENCE: PARTY OF RECORD FOR VUECREST LUA13-000642 Khalil, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa <Dof6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 From: tasnim khalil [mailto:tfk01@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:54 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: KHALIL RESIDENCE: PARTY OF RECORD FOR: VUECREST LUAB-000642 June 15,2012 Immediate Action Required! To: Vanessa Dolbee From: Khalil Residence (The Reserve At Stonehaven), 1003 S 47th St, Renton, WA, 98055 We as residence in the above named community have an urgent concern in regard to the proposed Vuecrest housing development below us (South of Sundance and West of Stonehaven). The plan includes building twenty-one new homes by next year possibly without addressing some of the proceeding concerns described below. In addition, The Sundance development of 18 homes is also concerned and both HOAs are submitting a protest letter to the City of Renton. As members of the neighborhood we list some concerns for our protest: 1 1. Encroachment on wetlands area: Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. 2. Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development. 3. There is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road but we count there will be 115 homes being served by one two-lane road! ( 4 7th Street and 102nd SE). 4. There is only one access route out of the new Vuecrest development, possibly limiting fire vehicle response time. 5. The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for fire department response. Since the crash of the home market, we look forward in raising our home values and standards and would like to make sure new developments keep up the high standards we value for our own neighborhood. Your much appreciated response Is needed to keep our neighborhood standards safe and sound. Thank you. Sincerely, T. Khalil 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: tasnim khalil <tfk01@hotmail.com> Saturday, June 15, 2013 11 :54 AM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Sent: To: Cc: Subject: KHALIL RESIDENCE: PARTY OF RECORD FOR: VUECREST LUA13-000642 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: June 15, 2012 Follow up Flagged Immediate Action Required! To: Vanessa Dolbee From: Khalil Residence (The Reserve At Stonehaven), 1003 S 4 7th St, Renton, WA, 98055 We as residence in the above named community have an urgent concern in regard to the proposed Vuecrest housing development below us (South of Sundance and West of Stonehaven). The plan includes building twenty-one new homes by next year possibly without addressing some of the proceeding concerns described below. In addition, The Sundance development of 18 homes is also concerned and both HOAs are submitting a protest letter to the City of Renton. As members of the neighborhood we list some concerns for our protest: 1. Encroachment on wetlands area: Three lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. 2. Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development. 3. There is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road but we count there will be 115 homes being served by one two-lane road! ( 4 7th Street and 102nd SE). 4. There is only one access route out of the new Vuecrest development, possibly limiting fire vehicle response time. 5. The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for fire department response. Since the crash of the home market, we look forward in raising our home values and standards and would like to make sure new developments keep up the high standards we value for our own neighborhood. Your much appreciated response is needed to keep our neighborhood standards safe and sound. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 T. Khalil 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Johnny, Vanessa Dolbee Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:27 AM 'Johnny Cheng' RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made ofthe subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa <Dof6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 From: Johnny Cheng [mailto:johnnyc54l@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:26 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Bill Edward Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehavcn and my address is: 4739 Burnett Court South, Renton, WA I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. 1 I have the following concerns r _ ·ding the development of Vuecrcst: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). \Ve understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road(47th Street and 102nd SE). \Ve feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will .be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Johnny Cheng 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Johnny Cheng <johnnyc541@gmail.com> Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:26 PM Vanessa Dolbee Bill Edward Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee(tv,rentonwa.gov Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehavcn and my address is: 4739 Burnett Court South, Renton, WA I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development), We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road(47th Street and 102nd SE). \Ve feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuccrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Johnny Cheng 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:28 AM 'Annie Lee' Subject: RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Annie, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. 'Vanessa ([)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Annie Lee [mailto:annielee08l6@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:43 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: William sebring; Annie Lee Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee@rcntonwa.gov Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 867 S. 48th Street, Renton, WA, 98055. 1 I request that I be added ac _ Party of Record for the propoc~--development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuccrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Annie Lee 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Annie Lee <annielee0816@gmail.com> Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:43 PM Vanessa Dolbee Subject: william sebring; Annie Lee Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 867 S. 48th Street, Renton, WA, 98055. I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles (40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrcst development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road (47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuccrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds Jive. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. 1 Sincerely, Annie Lee 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Chinh, Vanessa Dolbee Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:29 AM 'Pham, Chinh C' RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa (J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Pham, Chinh C [mailto:chinh.c.pham@boeing.com] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:12 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Bill Edward; Pham, Chinh C Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Re: Vueerest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 4703 BURNETT CT. S. RENTON,WA. 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuecrest: 1 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. 2) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road ( 47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Chinh Pham Sincerely, 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Pham, Chinh C <chinh.c.pham@boeing.com> Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:12 PM Vanessa Dolbee Bill Edward; Pham, Chinh C Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Follow up Completed Re: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Dear Ms. Dolbee, I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven and my address is: 4703 BURNETT CT. S. RENTON,WA. 98055 I request that I be added as a Party of Record for the proposed development referenced above. I have the following concerns regarding the development of Vuccrest: 1) There is only one access route out of the development, with a significantly smaller turnaround area than the present turnaround, potentially limiting fire vehicle response. Z) The plat does not appear to include a second water main serving the area and we are concerned regarding adequate water for Fire Department response. 3) Traffic congestion will increase by as many as 80 new vehicles ( 40 in Panther Ridge that has already been built and 40 in the new Vuecrest development). We understand there is no rule regarding the number of homes beyond the single access road (dead end) but we count there will be 115 homes or more being served by one two-lane road ( 47th Street and 102nd SE). We feel this is excessive and should be considered by the City. 4) Encroachment on wetlands area: Several lots in the proposed Vuecrest development intrude into the wetlands where several species of animals and birds live. Also, more than 400 trees will be cut down for the new development. There is concern that Vuecrest is too large for this environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Chinh Pham Sincerely, 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Lue Pestl <lpestl@northpacific.us> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:09 AM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Follow up Flagged I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven (4726 Burnett Ct. South) and wish to be a party of record for: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642. My concerns are as follows: 1. Limited access for emergency response, 2. Adequate water supply for Fire exctr., 3. 115 homes with only one two lane road ,4. Traffic congestion ,5.Encroachment on wetlands area. These are my concerns. Regards Lue Lue Pestl 1!,,,,tl, 'Pat41e ? ..d,,at,uat {!oati,,94 2900 Lind ave.SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 251-0335 (425) 251-0336 (Fax) (206) 947-2478 (Cell) 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:46 PM 'Lue Pestl' Subject: RE: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 Lue, Thank you for your comments on the subject subdivision application, you will be added to the party of record list for the subject project. As a party of record you will receive copies of City correspondence and copies of project decisions. At this time, there has not been any decision made of the subject application, and your comments will be taken into consideration by the City's Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner when making decisions on the subject application. Furthermore, I encourage you to attend the public hearing for this project, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. Again, thank you for your comments as they play an important role in reviewing land use applications. Vanessa !Do(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Lue Pest! [mailto:lpestl@northpacific.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:09 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com Subject: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 I am a homeowner in the Reserve at Stonehaven (4726 Burnett Ct. South) and wish to be a party of record for: Vuecrest LUA 13-000642. My concerns are as follows: 1. Limited access for emergency response, 2. Adequate water supply for Fire exctr., 3. 115 homes with only one two lane road ,4. Traffic congestion ,5.Encroachment on wetlands area. These are my concerns. Regards Lue Lue Pestl ~ 'Pad{ic 1~ ~ 2900 Lind ave.SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 251-0335 (425) 251-0336 (Fax) (206) 947-2478 (Cell) 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Vanessa, Thank you so much. Jim Condelles <jimcond@hotmail.com> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:34 AM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Yes, I think the presumption on the part of the two neighboring HOAs and our residents is that the city is on a path to approve the plan as it is and the exceptions contained in it based on the notice of the optional determination of non-significance. We note that the scope of the plan has enlarged, with additional lots added. which increase the concerns we are bringing forward. We believe there are compelling reasons to scale this project down significantly al the very least. The HOA boards of the Reserve at Stonehaven (of which I am a board member) and Sundance at Talbot Ridge plan lo submit official letters today to notify the city of these concerns. We are unified in our opposition to the project plan and will be documenting our complementary issues and recommendations. Thank you as always for your courtesy and responsiveness through this process. Jim Jim Condelles jimcond@hotmail com From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:00:35 +0000 Jim, I will include your comments in the following e-mail as a part of the official record. As you know, we appreciate you taking the time to comment on the project, as you and your neighbor's comments play an important role in the City's decision making process. At the end of your e-mail, you state "they ought never have been approved" referring to the lots in the wetland buffer. Please note, nothing has been approved at this time, the plans that are in the application file, is what the applicant has requested the City review. As I mentioned earlier, your comments and the public hearing play an important role in the decision making process, and I encourage you to attend the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for August 13, 2013 at 10:00 am. 1 'vanessa rDo[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Vanessa, Jim Condelles <jimcond@hotmail.com> Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:18 AM Vanessa Dolbee bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Follow up Completed I would like to be a party of record to this land use. I have received some material and also seen the posted signs and plat map. As a board member of the Reserve at Stonehaven I want to express my deep concerns about the plan. I know that our neighboring Sundance HOA shares the same concerns. i am copying fellow Stonehaven board members on this email as well. A number of concerns arise including the addition of 20+ homes in an area that has only one access road out. The added traffic and noise, including cars turning around all hours of the night and day are concerning as well as some of our homes will be directly abutting this area. There are also concerns related to fire department access. Alarming to us all is the proposal to decimate the wetlands area and destroy approximately 360 trees and wetlands habitat that is the home to deer, owls, coyotes, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. According to the plat map it appears that several lots and portions of the extended SE 186th Place will intrude into the wetland setback areas. This seems excessive given the small plat. We are proposing reducing the scope of the development and eliminating those homes that are placed on top of the wetlands protected area. I want to be clear that we expect the property lines to be carefully respected. The Reserve at Stonehaven has a wetlands tract and I am greatly concerned about incursion into that, accidental or otherwise, during this process. In addition, neighbor Joe MacKenzie reports that survey crews entered his property and tagged trees on his property. This cannot happen. We would like a detailed report about which trees are going to be removed, so that we can be assured they are not taking wetlands or trees from our HOA tract, and we would like a report on how the wetlands and large watershed will be protected --given that large areas of that watershed will now be built up and eliminated. We would strongly recommend extension ofthe existing, recognized wetland in this area, beginning with scaling down the plan to eliminate the two or three homes sitting on top of the wetlands area. This wetlands area by the way is a lake for 9-10 months out of the year. The proposed plat doesn't appear to make any provision for this water and the effects of building up structures and roads adjacent to it. These are all serious concerns we hope the City will take into consideration. 1 Thank you for your time, Jim Condelles 855 S. 48th Street Renton, \NA 98055 425-226-4494 206-769-6310 jimcond@hotmail.com From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: jimcond@hotmail.com Subject: Schneider land use Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:07:38 +0000 Jim, I have been out of the office for the past week and have followed your e-mail chain regarding the subject pre- application and the large land use signs posted near your home. I was hoping to give you a call to talk about the signs, however I do not have your phone number. Please give me a call at your convenience and we can talk about your concerns. Thank you, Vanessa <Do{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady \Nay Renton, \NA 98057 425.430.7314 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:44 AM 'Jim Condelles' Cc: Subject: Attachments: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com RE: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns 20130613095317765.pdf Jim Condelles, Thank you for your comments, you will be added to the party of record list for this project and will receive copies of all city correspondence as well and decisions on the project. Your comments will be placed in the project's official file and be taken into consideration by the Hearing Examiner and the Environmental Review Committee when making a decision on the subject project. To address some of your questions ~elow; the application has proposed to develop the subject site and not beyond the identified site/property lines. The reason you may have seen people surveying beyond the property lines is because, the City requires the applicant to submit map materials that show trees and critical areas beyond the property boundaries. This is so the City can understand what critical areas may be off-site that need buffer protection on- site. The same is true for the tree inventory, if there is a tree near the property edge that is not on the site, the developer is required to protect this tree during construction. Therefore we require a survey to extend outside the property boundaries. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the tree plan and the proposed landscaping plan for you to review. Please remember you are welcome to come into City Hall and look at the project file, which contains large format maps which may be easier to read. Again, thank you for taking the time to comment as your comments are an important part of the decision making process. Please let me know if you have any further questions. '~Janessa <Do[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 From: Jim Condelles [mailto:jimcond@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10: 18 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: bill.edward@yahoo.com; brittneeb217@gmail.com Subject: Vuecrest subdivision -South Renton -concerns Hi Vanessa, I would like to be a party of record to this land use. I have received some material and also seen the posted signs and plat map. 1 As a board member of the Reserve at Stonehaven I want to express my deep concerns about the plan. I know that our neighboring Sundance HOA shares the same concerns. i am copying fellow Stonehaven board members on this email as well. A number of concerns arise including the addition of 20+ homes in an area that has only one access road out. The added traffic and noise, including cars turning around all hours of the night and day are concerning as well as some of our homes will be directly abutting this area. There are also concerns related to fire department access. Alarming to us all is the proposal to decimate the wetlands area and destroy approximately 360 trees and wetlands habitat that is the home to deer, owls, coyotes, waterfowl and countless other wildlife. According to the plat map it appears that several lots and portions of the extended SE 186th Place will intrude into the wetland setback areas. This seems excessive given the small plat. We are proposing reducing the scope of the development and eliminating those homes that are placed on top of the wetlands protected area. I want to be clear that we expect the property lines to be carefully respected. The Reserve at Stonehaven has a wetlands tract and I am greatly concerned about incursion into that, accidental or otherwise, during this process. In addition, neighbor Joe MacKenzie reports that survey crews entered his property and tagged trees on his property. This cannot happen. We would like a detailed report about which trees are going to be removed, so that we can be assured they are not taking wetlands or trees from our HOA tract, and we would like a report on how the wetlands and large watershed will be protected --given that large areas of that watershed will now be built up and eliminated. We would strongly recommend extension of the existing, recognized wetland in this area, beginning with scaling down the plan to eliminate the two or three homes sitting on top of the wetlands area. This wetlands area by the way is a lake for 9-10 months out of the year. The proposed plat doesn't appear to make any provision for this water and the effects of building up structures and roads adjacent to it. These are all serious concerns we hope the City will take into consideration. Thank you for your time, Jim Condelles 855 S. 48th Street Renton, WA 98055 425-226-4494 206-769-6310 jimcond@hotmail.com 2 From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: iimcond@hotmail.com Subject: Schneider land use Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:07:38 +0000 Jim, I have been out of the office for the past week and have followed your e-mail chain regarding the subject pre- application and the large land use signs posted near your home. I was hoping to give you a call to talk about the signs, however I do not have your phone number. Please give me a call at your convenience and we can talk about your concerns. Thank you, 'Vanessa <Do(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 3 • ' ' • • I s I ! I i ! i ~ I a , , j w , < z ~ u w iil " N s;j- <D 0 0 0 I I") < ::::, ...l V) w f-- ;": V) w f-- ~I (.) w ::::, > I B 1:Y N.ET IE J57.00 ,. (T',p.) A ;,1 SE 1/4 SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.. VUECREST ESTATES Si/ID' QM~ w/ LIDiXJ1 ,t-24-• ~ RJU a-S72..00 / UJa().B._£ HNCED A= MTOI {r!P.) {NGN-'1RAFF1C BO.RJNG) :x· ACCESS UD -="""" <=> ':,'JIB:;~ FINGIE1J GllAi)£ ~00 -. - II I-t f me' CF VAULT J.1U5G TI TT I- S'z10• i;;ru,:,r W/ I..AiJIXR .le u· SQ.JAR£ R/J,/ a-J12.oo (HOH-TRAflJC 8€ARING) ---- LOO;:.,.st.c HINGED ACCESS HATCH (T',P.) ~ ---~ l • :!;c' IIIN.15% J,IJJ{ {rfP.) ! (T'rP.) • 'I ;1 ,kr i ,,_i,, ! -,.,:,,,. -,, 'A / i I 1 I """"""""' • [ -----------11 -TT TT ~ • __ '"oo' ,,, ..,,,,___ ___ g,.-_--""""~ == .s a =-oo ~ ---'-I ------------------------r-2ur~,wm = nw~,~m------= ---- 12" OUTl£T' IE -=.oo PLAN WEW r·~w 1fl Cel 2 ~ Dara 8"'kn You Dig 811 utfin ~ Loc:atie:in Center (D,MT)C),Cfl,WA) --.,,,= ·-t t --- lr!c_OO' ~ _____ w.a = 11:s. a 359.oo -$-----11------------p f2" l'iLET !L .XU.00 ----~r5£DM:NfSTCRAGHL ~~-j L---~Tl'P.) ---------,cnv __ .. !P,J!Q'_ l---~r--------,.=-----a=~ B ~= sEcnoN A-A 1·-s MANHOi£ SECTJQ#I USED ~ ACCESS __,-,----RJJI :V:Z.00 /"""" 24" Aci:::n:s LJD ~ --------- r l ~; ' ' -'" \.....a_ .35..2.&8 t' CRA ,u BASE: F1N1SHED GR,ioc :LJ72.00 TQP aF VAULr 370.:50 fa:50, FREEBOM?D D£1Dillcil iiisiGN-w.S: iL=.)69-00?------------------ ------._ _____ _ ra.00' OPEN/Nr:. (TYP.) ~oo· -------i---------w.a m_w.s. a_::159.oo __ ~------- 11"rooID1G~ ~le "''"""°~~~~-------~\------------------~~~-----;----""..~~G~~~~-""~"--------}-~ j - ---f----- \ -~p ,~ "-a =6s "'-r ="-lfl. BASE" "-ur ,O~RAGF: smtJHJ;r S7DR,\G£ (TrP.) S£Cn0N B-B r·~s· [r RS]):!:~~= I I I~ IOAJW~l1 l1 :~,I (j .. ~ CITY OF RENTON Pl<:mning/Building/PubUc Works Dept. 0425ZHJDQ F"3.MT.M:13 ,a. RE\IISiON @ NORTH GRAPI-IICSCALE 25 50 100 1 INCH"' 50 FT. VUECREST ESTA1ES I 06.19.14 PRELIMINARY PLAT '"""' VAULT DETAILS DRS PROJECT NO. 12102 VUECREST PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Jamie Waltier Geonerco Pro~erties WA, LLC 1441 N. 34 1 Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 Prepared by C<:i!l!Ex TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 23, 2013 EXHIBIT 30 TraF/'jgJ;:r April 23, 2013 Geonerco Properties WA, LLC Attn: Jamie Waltier 1441 N. 34th Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 Re: Vuecrest Plat -City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Waltier: NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kir~and. WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.<t 118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 21 lot Vuecrest Residential plat on Smithers Ave. S, south of S 47'h St. in the City of Renton. Proposed access to the site is to be provided by a street connection to S. 47'h Street The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan, conversations with City of Renton staff 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 site access street connects to Smithers Ave. at the north side of the site. It then runs to the south and curves to the east becoming 1681h Pl. which then is stubbed to the east side of the site. The site access street will be constructed to City of Renton standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Development of the Vuecrest plat is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. Page 1 Vuecrest Plat Traff@!% TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 21 single-family units in the proposed Vuecrest Plat 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 100 101 Average Weekday 9.57 201 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 4 12 16 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 13 8 21 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, Eighth Edition, 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: Smithers Ave. 102nd Ave. SE (Main Ave S) SE 4ih St. Page2 Local Access Local Access Local Access Vuecrest Plat Traff!l!J;r Smithers Ave. SE, SE 4y!h St., and 102"d Ave SE (Main Ave. S) in the project vicinity have a speed limit of 25 mph and consist of two lanes with curb gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street. The streets in the area are straight and flat yielding excellent sight distance at the study intersections. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed Site Access St./156'h Ave. SE and Site Access St./158'h Ave SE intersections. The City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development requires an analysis of intersections impacted by 30 or more project generated peak hour trips. The proposed project generates less than 30 PM peak hour trips and therefore no intersections meet this threshold. The SE 4 7'h St./102"d Ave SE and SE 48'h Pl./102nd Ave SE intersections were analyzed nonetheless, since they are the nearest intersections to the site and provide access to the site. PM peak hour traffic counts were performed at these intersections on Thursday, April 18, 2013 and are 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: TYPE OF A B C D E INTERSECTION < >10.0 and >20.0 and >55.0 and Signalized 10. >35.0 and 0 90.0 S35.0 <55.0 sao.o Stop Sign Control S10 >10 and s15 >15 and S25 >25 and S35 >35 and S50 .0 Page3 F >80. 0 >50 Vuecrest Plat Traff~ FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections are calculated to operate at an excellent LOS of A for future 2015 conditions including project-generated traffic. 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. The net new daily trips due to this development are 201 trips. The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $15,075 (201 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). Page4 Vuecrest Plat Traffflfl:j SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA T/ONS We recommend that the Vuecrest Plat be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk to the project site streets to City of Renton standard. • Contribute the approximately $15,075 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 5 ~RES:9/15114 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffiEx TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY VUECREST PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT s4ythst1 (A 7.2) (A 7.2) (A 7.3) 102nd Ave. SE (Main Ave. S) NB NB NB S 481h St/ (A 8.4) (A 8.4) (A8.4) 102nd Ave. SE. (Main Ave. S) EB EB EB * Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay NB northbound approach EB eastbound approach Page 6 • 'i~ I "' .· 'I-' .. ·· •.'~ Vuecrest Plat -City of Renton Vicinity Map l:!:itlfEx TRAFFIC £XP.E:RTS • Figure 1 ,._., .. -,,,.,,._. Vuecrest Plat -City of Renton Site Plan / / / -- ,I / TRACT"C" :r!IU'-'CW.TI,.,. l~li) s..r r~....,..---~-., r ,-i , 21 . ' l.2« S.f". PHJ D..CV. .Wl.O I I I ~ Figure 2 100 % +-13 S471hSt CD 8 --+ S471h Pl S48th@ \>I 2/<. 00 tSE 18~ 8 ~ ~ ~ SE 186't, 1$} .- 0 !:i1 (J) '!!€!!fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS • Q. ~87th Pl· r PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 13 Exit 8 Total 21 (I) rn "" 0 co t 0 ~ <') 0 ~ ~ S 47th St 102rd Av S 48th St 102nd Av Vuecrest Plat • City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution Legend 15% Percentage of Projec!Traffic +-3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 3 13 S471h St (D S471h Pl 8 481h $]) 91 Project Site Se18~ Existing traffic S 47th St 102rd Av = = -) I QJ0 ' 3 ' I ND -- S 48th St 102nd Av Future without oroiect o-(D-o ' r 7 .... r 0 = S47thSt 102rdAv = -OJ® ' 3 , I M --- S 48th St 102nd Av SE 186'h.s, en ~87thPI Project Trios S47thSt 102rdAv = "' Q ) I '0 Q-.,"'l I 0 "' S 48th St 102nd Av Vuecrest Plat • City of Renton Existing and Future PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes !1:e!fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS Future with Proiect o-(D-o ' r 15 , r 0 = S 47th St 102rd Av cr, = -Q ) I J0 3 ""'"'I I Ms;" -N S 48th St 102nd Av Figure 4 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Prepared for Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. II Phone: (253) 926-6009 FAX: (253) 922-7211 E-Mail: Tean@TC2inc.com Intersection: 102nd Ave SE & S 185th PI/S 48th St Locallon: Renton. Wasbington Time Frcm North on {'SB} From Soulh on (NB) lnterval Endml'. at 4:15 P 4 30 P 4.45 P 5 00 P 5:15 P 5:JO P 5.45 P 6:00 P 6'15 P 6·30 P 6:45 P 7:00 P Total Survey Total Aooroach %HV PHF T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l02ndAveSE 102nd Ave SE L s R T I. s R T 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 u 1 1 0 1 4 5 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 ) 2 ' 0 0 2 0 " 5 2 3 " 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 " 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 " 16 20 23 17 0 Peak Hour. 5:00 PM lo 10 12 10 I 10 0 10 32 "'' "'' . 102nd Ave SE I 20 S 48th St 10 I o I 12 I Pedr-·o-] Bike 0 I " L....I 5:00PM 'WBEIDBE Date cf Count: Thurs 04/l8/201J Checked By: != From E11SI on ('NB) From West on (EB) SE 18~th Pl S 48th St L s R T L s R 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 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 8 0 1 u u 1 5 6:00 PM I 6 0 0 0 o I o I 3 6 3 "'' •• I r·--·-1 , 0 ,B1ke ,-----... j O iPed SE 185th Pl 0 161 - __£_ ' I 161 6:00PM lnteNal Total 1' 12 9 10 1' 12 14 13 0 " 0 " " 51 51 o.n% 0.91 Selli Across· N s INT01 I I E w 1 Pedi 2 I 0 Bike( __ p __ j 12 I ~ 1.0 PHF Peak Hour Volume PHF %HV ---,- 1NT02 --!--I ... --... INT03 l -- INTO<-I INT05 ! INT06 ·1 ---- INT07 __ l_z_l ___ 2 ____ _ ::;~:--l----1-----_------- INT ,oj __ -~---~- INT 11 __ I ___ I ____ ! __ _ INT 12 I I I UI LI .!I Sncctal Notes ' I s1 I 102nd Ave SE Blcyclee :~::,_-_""::::·, ~.'_"_-,-1, -~~"----~--.":_-_ ,0 INT02 I i i 0 1NT03 ~~----[--------0 INT04 [ l· j ·o INT05 I I I 0 INT06 ~'B"B!KES--1----0 INT07 I -·--1 ·--0 INTOB ==] _=---: __ I __ ... ·-··-·-···1----0 INT 09 ------·------~-_-: I-_~ -_ =: ~ :~~ l! ==---~-~~-=-(-----r---.. g ol ol ol oo EH n'a Ch~ck WB "' In: 51 so .. "' Out: 51 SB -"' T Int. 0.91 0.0% jcond,1ions I TRA13067M 01p • Prepared for-Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phone: (253) 925-6009 FAX: (253) 922-7211 E-Mail: Te.rn@TC2inc.com WBE/DBE Intersection: 102nd Ave SE & S 47th PVS 47th S1 Date of Count Thurs 04/18/2013 Loca11on: Renton, Washington Checked By: l= Time From Nortll on {SB) From South on (NB) From East on [WB) From We11t on (EB) lnteNal Interval 0 102nd Ave SE S 47th Pl S 47th St To1al Ending at T L s R T L s R T L s R T L s R 4:15 P 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 J 0 l l 0 0 0 l 0 7 4:30 p 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 l l 7 4:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 l 0 0 0 0 l 6 5:00 P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 5:15 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ' l 0 0 0 0 2 ' 5:30 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 2 s 5:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 l ' 6:00 P 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 6:15 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6·45 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Smvev 0 0 l7 0 ' 0 0 '" Peak Hour. 4:15 PM lo 5:15 PM Total o I o-I o I o o I s 0 , I o '" Aporoach l2 28 %IN "" "' '"' PHF .. 0.78 1B r S47thSt S47th Pl "l_,_I 4: 15 PM 5:15 PM ER ?J N E w INT 01 !__ I ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 su:~[ __ 9 __ J ,,,'. ____ "·--[' ' L__._ l.2Ll 1.0 PHF Peak Hour Volume PHF %1--fV ::; : 1(--T~f ~-·- INT05 -------'---- U'>ITOB --__ I ___ , - !NT07 __ 21_2' _ JNT 08 I I ___ _: ____ _ :~~~~=1=_--: 1Nr11 --r--1 --1 INT12 --1--I 01 21 21 0 Saecial -r-·otes ' 0 0 0 0 0 ' c::::;;:::J GJ 25 102nd Ave SE Bicycles From: N 6 T E · 1 W INT 01 __ l ___ _I ______ _j ___ . 0 INT02 , I I 0 INTOJ ___ I I T-------0 INT04 :---i---_T ______ 0 "'"'--,--1---,----o 1NT06~b8IKf.S ~---0 INT07 ~r--T-,_ ---0 INTM==r ___ • ____ '---·-· 0 INTl.l9 I ! 0 INT10 i _____ ! ____ .,_,. 0 INT11 ·==1 --___ ·--0 INT12 j ··--·-I 0 oT of ol oo EB .. "'' Check WB • .. "'' In: 28 NB "'' Out: 28 SB "'' Tlnl. 0.78 0.0% !Conditions: I TRA 13067M 02p Existing PM peak hour 3: S 47th St & 102nd Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control -+ - Volume (vph) 7 O O Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate (vph) O 9 O O 13 O 4120/2013 J'ii@idfiffio~W.~sMw~~!l'AJ§!!iJJ.mdh._NWIW,.J~ Volume Total (vph) 9 o 13 Volume Lett (vph) O O 13 Volume Right (vph) 9 0 0 Hadj (s) -0.60 0.00 0.20 Departure Headway (s) 3.3 3.9 4.1 Degree Utilization, x O.D1 0.00 0.01 Capacity (vehlh) 1069 900 859 Control Delay (s) 6.4 6.9 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 6.4 0.0 7.2 Approach LOS A A A I "t'--.,,.,""""" "™"'"'1'"""""·"'-'ii""""""""'""""""'l'"""',..""""""'""'""""''"'-"2 -..,"' •1™ I """"""""'''ill! n ers.,,_,1oa..,_umm;,.,,..,,..,.,~.,,i;,i,,.>i,,,,,.,,.1,,,,,,,,,,:,,,-'l,-;i,~m,.;l,'i'l',..-sza& t a&i!IIJ~ Rlit IJl.tii,,,m,,,.,.,;.,, Delay 6.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 Existing PM peak hour 5: S 48th St & 102nd Ave SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) 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 (vehlh) 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 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline V 0 3 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0 3 48 11 48 11 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 100 100 958 1076 3 24 0 13 3 0 1076 1621 0.00 0.01 0 1 8.4 4.0 A A 8.4 4.0 A 12 0.91 13 11 11 4.1 2.2 99 1621 11 0 0 1700 0.01 0 0.0 0.0 3.2 17.9% 15 <t 10 Free 0% 0.91 11 None io- 10 0 Free 0% 0.91 0.91 11 0 None ICU Level of Service A 4/20/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 Future Without Project PM peak hour 3: S 47th St & 102nd Ave SE -t - Moiemenf~e iiifilllll@WiiiWBm&Wa.'illtNJlWclBBiltiiiiii!li.&SU .Z&ltilw Lane Configurations t,. ,t V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) O 7 0 O 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 9 0 ~~l~Bm!IW®'ENB!l!GI Volume Total (vph) 9 O 14 Volume Left (vph) O O 14 Volume Right (vph) 9 0 0 Hadj (s) -0.60 o.oo 0.20 Departure Headway (s) 3.3 3.9 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.00 0.02 Capacity (veh/h) 1068 900 859 Control Delay (s) 6.4 6.9 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 6.4 0.0 7.2 Approach LOS A A A lnffit!:ecitioffiStToftiJ~~WiL&J.ili4Mll~-'1~H Delay 6.9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline 4/20/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 Future Without Project PM peak hour 5: S 48th St & 102nd Ave SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control 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 cont 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 liii~1Nctlcin1SGM/iiaiy,, Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline ¥ 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0 53 53 6.4 3.5 100 952 3 0 3 1074 0.00 0 8.4 A 8.4 A 3 0.91 3 12 12 6.2 3.3 100 1074 26 14 0 1620 0.01 1 4.0 A 4.0 13 0.91 14 12 12 4.1 2.2 99 1620 12 0 0 1700 O.D1 0 0.0 0.0 3.2 18.0% 15 4' 11 Free 0% 0.91 12 None t,. 11 0 Free 0'% 0.91 0.91 12 0 None ICU Level of Service A 4/20/2013 ' ' Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 Future With Project PM peak hour 3: S 47th St & 102nd Ave SE -."). - MW.Efm\'!itiiiit/.iif~1lJRl6BDME.&ll!iBt Lane Configurations 't,. ,t Sign Control Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 15 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourlyflowrate(vph) 0 19 0 0 l'llliBN!lRl!i'l!Wlii V Stop 24 0 0.78 0.78 31 0 mrW!iPii'Atran!@l!!liiJf~BJfa[wa~@ --·--- vo1ume Total (vph) 19 O 31 Volume Left (vph) O O 31 Volume Right (vph) 19 O O Hadj (s) -0.60 0.00 0.20 Departure Headway (s) 3.4 4.0 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.00 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 1052 900 854 Control Delay (s) 6.4 7.0 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.4 o.o 7.3 Approach LOS A A A l"fei'''""l._w~£&)~'iJl•,!,11"1m"11™'""'":,;,:~· ' IJ_ e($~_v!D1:..1NUID~ •. O\:Akrl".te~-~~,:4.,":a-\~titg1f«.;::~~~~,. Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline 13.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A 4/20/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 Future With Project PM peak hour 5: S 48th St & 102nd Ave SE 4/20/2013 Lane Configurations V Volume (veh/h) 0 Sign Control Stop Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (/Us) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 76 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 76 tC, single (s) 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 pO queue free % 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 924 Volume Total 3 Volume Lett 0 Volume Right 3 cSH 1062 Volume to Capacity 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Control Delay (s) 8.4 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 8.4 Approach LOS A Baseline t + __ -. . ---· . ·i .f t,. 3 13 24 19 0 Free Free 0% 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 3 14 26 21 0 None None 21 21 21 21 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 100 99 1062 1608 . ' ' . - 41 14 0 1608 0.01 1 2.6 A 2.6 " ------- 21 0 0 1700 0.01 0 0.0 0.0 2.1 18.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMb,.ffY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REVIEW REPORT, REVISED ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner: Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Site Area: J1c1ly 1S, 2013 August 18, 2014 Vuecrest Estates LUAB-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Entire Document Available Upon Request Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd #1; Tukwila WA 98188 Jamie Waltier; Harbour Homes; 1441 N 34th St #200; Seattle WA 98103 Maher Joudi; DR Strong Consulting Eng; 10604 NE 381h Pl, Suite 232; Kirkland WA 98033 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into~ 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single- Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. 263,328 sf (6.06 acres) Building Area to remain: Building Area to be demolished Project Location Map N/A N/A EXHIBIT 31 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Date: September 9, 2014 To: Vuecrest Estates, LUA13-000642 Parties of Record From: Department of Community and Economic Development A public hearing on the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 10 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S. Grady Way. The staff report to the Hearing Examiner, including project reports and public comment letters, is available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number LUA13-000642 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $32.55, plus a handling and postage cost of $7.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added) If you have questions about the report or the project, please contact: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner 425-430-6581 ehiggins@rentonwa.gov Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov pp.oJac..T f'ft.o c..1. 4i.'=a + t, '1-1 f!.& VI e,w 1"1 TM14- ~a.L-n o..t August 29, 2014 Maher Joudi Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chi p"Vi ncent, Adm in istrato r D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 381h Pl.ace #232 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL {SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, 13-000672, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Joudi: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report, for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 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 September 16, 2014 at 10:00 am to consider the Preliminary Plat. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff recommendation will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. lfthe 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) 430-6581. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner Enclosure Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady.Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Maher Joudi • D.R. Strong Consulting Engi rs 10604 NE 38th Place #232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Page 2 of 2 August 28, 2014 cc: Schneider Homes/ Owner(s) Jamie Waltier / Applicant Party(ies) of Record ERC Determination Ltr DNSM 8.1413-000642 Denis Law Mayor August 29, 2014 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on August 25, 2014: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA#B-000642, ECF, PP Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 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) 430-6581. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins 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, 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 r ¢ City of, ---------.1 { s Il r0 I 1 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: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUA13--000642, ECF, PP 4800 BLOCK OF SMITHERS AVENUES THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIITEE (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 September 12, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 AT 10:00 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. DEPARTMENT OF COMM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL {SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUAB-000642 Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes Vuecrest Estates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 21 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 4800 BLOCK OF SMITHERS AVENUES 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 September 12, 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: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department August 29, 2014 AUGUST 26, 2014 Date Fire & Emergency Services C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development &' /2~ /;r r1 Date Date DEPARTMENT OF CuM ... JNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUAB-000642, ECF, PP Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into~ 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is correspondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on- grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat ... ," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'A'. 3. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore, the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. 7. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 8. Native Growth Protection Easements 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners' Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements. This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 9. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Community Services Review Leslie Betlach Ph: 425-430-6619 email: LBetlach@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: All of the R.O.W. is being proposed to be dedicated to the City, including landscaping and irrigation requiring forestry maintenance and irrigation maintenance, which is currently unfunded. Community Services does not support accepting sensitive area tracts, for other parcels as this is not supported by any adopted plan. Street trees along Smithers Ave S should be trees that mature at a large size. Do not use Callery Pear per plan. Street trees along SE 186th Pl should be different species from trees along Smithers & be large-maturing. Each lot should receive 1 tree except corner lots should contain 2 street trees. All street tree spacing shall be 50 feet on-center. Engineering Review Rohini Nair Ph: 425-430-7298 email: rnair@rentonwa.gov Engineering Plan Review Comments Created On: 07/08/2013 • The streets have been named by the City and the information has been provided to the applicant engineer. • South 48th Place must meet with Fire Department approval regarding culdesac turnaround as per City standard dimensions and/or a secondary access. ( Discussed with Corey after your email and he said that things had changed after his email to you). • Provide draft letter/ email from Soos Creek regarding the water service to the Vuecrest site. This project is slightly different from other projects since it currently lies in the Renton Service area, but the City does not have water service mains in the area. The existing water main that ends at the north property line of the development, is served by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. • The location of the detention facility can be determined after the landslide hazard areas concerns are addressed by the geotech and as per City amendments of KCSWDM. Section I of Core Requirement #3: Flow Control of the City's 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment includes I. FACILITY REQUIREMENT IN LANDSLIDE HAZARD DRAINAGE AREAS Proposed projects subject to Discharge Requirement 2 in Core Requirement #1 (seep. 1-20) must provide a tightline system unless the 100-year runoff from the project site can be feasibly infiltrated or one of the other exceptions listed on page 1-20 apply. For infiltration to be used as an alternative to the tightline requirement, it must be feasible per the facility design requirements and limitations specified in Section 5.4. When evaluating the feasibility of ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 8 infiltration, multiple facility locations scattered throughout the project site shall be considered and used where feasible and practical to avoid concentrating infiltrated water in one location. If multiple facilities are not feasible or practical, then a single infiltration facility meeting the minimum setback requirements in Section 5.4 may be used where feasible. Where infiltration is not feasible, it is still possible for a proposed project to qualify for one of the other exceptions to the tightline requirement specified in Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-20). If such a project is subject to the flow control facility requirement in Core Requirement #3, the required facility must be a detention pond sized to meet, at minimum, the Flow Control Duration Standard Matching Forested site conditions flow control facility standard with a safety factor of 20% applied to the storage volume. The detention pond must be sited and designed so as to maximize the opportunity for infiltration in the pond. To accomplish this, all of the following design requirements must be met: 1. The detention pond must be preceded by either a water quality treatment facility per Core Requirement #8 or a presettling basin per Section 5.4, AND 2. All detention pond side slopes must be 3H:1Vor flatter and must be earthen, AND 3. Detention pond liners that impede infiltration shall not be used, AND 4. The pond bottom shall be at or above the seasonal high groundwater table, AND 5. The detention pond outflow must meet the discharge dispersal requirements specified in Discharge Requirement 1 of Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-19). • Independent secondary review is required consistent with RMC 4-3-lOOJ and RMC 4-3-100F7. b. i Geologic Hazards: Independent secondary review shall be conducted in accordance with the following: i. Required -Sensitive and Protected Slopes, and Medium, High, or Very High Landslide Hazards: All geotechnical reports submitted in accordance with subsection J2 ofthis Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC, Permits - General and Appeals, shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. An applicant may request that independent review be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority-Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Shorelines, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands subsection F7 of this Section. • The Flow control application in the TIR should refer the site as in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) • Label the site access shown in the conceptual road and grading plan as (as private or public), showing o the ROW width/ easement width, o paved widths ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 8 Technical Services Bob MacOnie Ph: 425-430-7369 email: bmaconie@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: There is a substantial and long standing encroachment over the southwesterly portion of proposed Tract 'C'. This issue needs to be remedied prior to final plat approval. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUAB-000642 and LND-10-0501, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 of8 Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Remove references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. lfthere is a . Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. Please provide a label, e.g. Tract 'G' for the balance of the parcel being subdivided. Provide appropriate conveying language for the Tracts created. For those belong to the HOA: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract(s whatever) is/are hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners' Association (HOA). In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract(s) previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract(s whatever). The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 6 of 8 maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat or reference to a separate recording instrument detailing the same. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner(s). Planning Custom Created On: 06/06/2013 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study and Slope Analysis prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC., dated February 25, 2013 and April 10, 2013 respectively. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Wetland Resources Inc., dated May 10, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TraffEx Northwest Traffic Experts, dated April 23, 2013. Fire Review -Building Corey Thomas Ph: 425-430-7024 email: cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150-feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500 -feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 7 of 8 homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. 3. The Renton Fire and Emergency Services Department does not support any variance request waiving the required secondary access due to the extreme length (approximate maximum length of 2,SOO feet)of the proposed dead end street, the heavily forested areas surrounding the proposed development and the increased risk of lengthly response times due to traffic and congestion on the existing dead end street already serving approximately 100 single family lots. Police Review Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-7521 email: cparks@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 20 estimated CFS annually Minimal impact ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 8 of 8 DEPARTMENT OF COMMl,, . AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REVIEW REPORT, REVISED ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner: Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Site Area: J1Jly 1§, 2.QB August 18, 2014 Vuecrest Estates LUAB-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 South center Blvd #1; Tukwila WA 98188 Jamie Waltier; Harbour Homes; 1441 N 34th St #200; Seattle WA 98103 Maher Joudi; DR Strong Consulting Eng; 10604 NE 38 1 h Pl, Suite 232; Kirkland WA 98033 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into l-± 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single- Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. 263,328 sf (6.06 acres) Building Area to remain: Building Area to be demolished Project Location Map N/A N/A City of Renton Department of Comm VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT anomic Development ental Review Committee Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Report of Jsly 1§, 2913 August 18, 2014 Page 2 of9 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND A. 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: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Environmental Review Committee Report and Decision, Revised August 18, 2014 Vicinity Map, Revised July 15, 2014 Zoning Map Talbot Urban Separator Overlay Map Conceptual Road and Grading Plan, Revised July 15, 2014 Regulated Slopes Landslide Hazard Areas Critical Area Study Map Preliminary Plat Plan, Revised July 15, 2014 Downstream Map Drainage Control Plan, Revised July 15, 2014 Erosion Hazard Map Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.; "Geotechnical Review, October 31, 2013 Hart Crowser; "Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents -Vuecrest Residential Development," dated February 24, 2014 Letter from City of Renton to Jamie Waltier, dated April 11, 2014 Technical Information Report for Vuecrest Estates, Revised July 15, 2014 (full report available in project file) The Coe Law Firm; Letter of Intent, dated July 14, 2014 Proposed Stormwater Vault letter, dated June 24, 2014 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd #1; Tukwila WA 98188 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 3. Zoning Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single- Family (RSF), Residential Medium Density (RMD) Residential 1 (R-1), Residential 8 (R-8), Residential 14 (R-14) Undeveloped a. North: Talbot Ridge residential development (R-1 and R-8 zones) b. East: c. South: d. West: 6. Access: 7. Site Area: Reserve at Stonehaven and low-density residential development (zoned R-8) Low-density residential development (R-1 and R-8 zones) Talbot Park and Campen Springs residential developments (R-1 and R-14 zones) Smithers Ave S via Main Ave S 263,328 sf (6.06 acres) ERC Report 13-000642, revised August 18, 2014 City of Renton Department of Comm VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of Jsly 1S, 2013 August 18, 2014 C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: anomic Development Action Land Use File No. Comprehensive Plan N/A Zoning N/A Annexation N/A D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ordinance No. 5100 5100 3268 ental Review Committee Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Date 11/01/04 11/01/04 12/13/78 Page 3 of9 E. In 2013, the project proponent submitted a land use master application for subdivision of a 9.31 acre property located in the City of Renton. During the application review, the City of Renton required additional information to be submitted. A "hold" was placed on the project review on July 16, 2013. The requested additional information has been submitted and project review recommenced. The project has been revised as follows: there are now 20 lots proposed (not 21), some lot sizes have changed, the primary access road has been realigned slightly to the east, a rockery retaining wall has been eliminated from the top of a steep slope, grading on the west side of the portion of the site to be developed has been modified, and the surface water control plan revised. The project is subject to State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) compliant environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision. The project proponent has submitted a Modification request of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. The site has two Category 2 wetlands, one of which connects to a class 4 stream. The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/a), Residential 8 (8 du/a) and Residential 14 (14 du/a). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.04 acre portion that is zoned R-8 is proposed to be developed. Subdivision into 20 lots would result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree retention. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a "dead end" road from the intersection of SE 1861h St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information Report with the application. The property is located in the Talbot Planning Area in South Renton (Exhibit 2). Goals, objectives, and policies ofthe Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single-Family (RSF), and Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations are implemented by the regulations and standards of the Residential 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14 zones respectively (Exhibit 3). The property is also in the Talbot Urban Separator of the City (Exhibit 4). ERC Report 13-000642, revised August 18, 2014 City of Renton Department of Cammu ·, e -conomic Development VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY P Report of Jaly 1§, 2GB August 18, 2014 ~ PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW -vi ental Review Committee Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Page 4 of 9 In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) -compliant environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing Renton Municipal Code 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. B. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on-grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat ... ," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'A'. 3. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore, the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. 7. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 8. Native Growth Protection Easements 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners' Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements. This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 9. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. £RC Report 13-000642~ revised August 18~ 2014 City of Renton Department of Comm VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of Jsly 1!i, 2013 August 18, 2014 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS anomic Development 1ental Review Committee Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Page 5 of 9 The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Deportments and Divisions and appropriate state agencies to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff and state reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The land use application includes a report by the geotechnical consulting firm of Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW). "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat ... ," dated February 25, 2013 that addresses the feasibility of the proposed development from a geotechnical standpoint. ESNW performed cone penetration tests (CPT) on the project site to determine soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed new construction. The results of these tests, which took place in mid-January, 2013, indicate that soils to depths of 1 to 2 feet consist of moderate to well-compacted silty, sand fill; soils underlying these fills are highly variable interbedded alluvial soils composed of silts, clay, silty clay, and silty sand layers at depths up to 20 feet. Below this depth the CPT indicate very dense silty sand and sand and gravel. Based on the geotechnical research, ESNW concluded in the Study that the project was "feasible from a geotechnical standpoint." The western half (approximately) of the site is designated as a critical area, based on the presence of "sensitive" and "protected" slopes (Exhibit 6) and "high landslide hazard" area (Exhibit 7). Sensitive slopes are those with slope angles of between 25 and 40 percent and protected slopes are those estimated to be between 40 and 90 percent. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) 'A'. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of the NGPA shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. A subsequent ESNW report, dated April 10, 2013, specifically addressed proposed slope setbacks. Based on this ESNW slope analysis, the proposed development would "not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond the pre-development conditions." Regardless of this assessment, the Environmental Review Committee, on July 15, 2013, requested a geotechnical report by a second geotechnical firm. On July 29, 2013, the firm of Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. was engaged by the City, with fees paid by the project proponent. Their report of October 31, 2013 (Exhibit 13), provided an assessment of the initial geotechnical report, the proposed grading plan, and made various suggestions for plan revisions, including elimination of the rockery, increasing the building foundation setbacks, and revision of the proposal to discharge stormwater from the vault at the top of the slope. Based on this report, staff recommends that building permits be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and that all such walls be structural. ESNW responded to the peer review in a report dated December 2, 2013. Cross-sections ofthe subsurface conditions were provided in this report, as was a landslide hazard analysis. Additional information was requested by the City, and was provided in a follow-up letter from ESNW dated December 10, 2013. ERC Report 13-000642, revised August 18, 2014 City of Renton Department of Comm . VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of J"ly 1S, 2913 August 18, 2014 anomic Development 1ental Review Committee Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Page 6 of 9 In January 2014, the City retained the firm of HartCrowser to provide tertiary review of the collective geotechnical reports and analyses to that date. Their conclusion in a report, "Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents -Vuecrest Residential Development," dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 14), was that "minimum risk statement" required by Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050J2 and provided by ESNW in their letter of December 10, 2013, was supported by the geotechnical analyses, based on common geotechnical engineering practice. HartCrowser did not, however, endorse the proposal to discharge surface water at the top of the protected slope, recommending a stormwater collection and discharge design that "specifically address[es] the potential for increased surface erosion and potential for slope instability ... associated with the proposed design." The City, on April 11, 2014, further clarified the necessity to redesign the stormwater collection and discharge system in a letter to the project proponent (Exhibit 15). On July 16, 2014, a resubmittal was made that included revised plans (Exhibits 5, 9, and 11), a revised Technical Information Report (Exhibit 16), a Letter of Intent regarding the ability to utilize an existing downstream private stormwater system (Exhibit 17), and assessment of the weight of the proposed stormwater vault and its effect on the adjacent slope (Exhibit 18). At this time, staff recommends approval of the revised plans with conditions as listed below. Mitigation Measures: 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on-grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat ... ," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'A'. 3. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore, the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)Environmental Review; RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations; RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations. ERC Report 13-000642, revised August 18, 2014 City of Renton Department of Comm1, VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of Jsly 1S, 2013 August 18, 2014 2. Water (Wetland and Stream) anomic Development ,ental Review Committee Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Page 7 of9 Impacts: There is a wetland and a stream on the project site. The land use application included "Critical Area Study for Vuecrest," dated April 8, 2013, and "Supplemental Stream Study for Vuecrest Estates," dated May 10, 2013, both by Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI). According to the Critical Area Study, a jurisdictional wetland is located in a depression on the east and south areas of the site. It is, apparently, a single wetland, the north portion of which curves off site to the east (Exhibit 8), then back onto the south one-third of the site. The Study further states that a stream flows westward within the south part ofthe wetland. The Study classified the wetland as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, saturated (Category II), with differing characteristics north and south. The northern portion being more influenced by the proximity to higher-density residential development, with a higher concentration of invasive species than the southern part, which has a higher concentration of native plants. Category II wetlands require a SO-foot buffer. Buffer averaging is available and has been proposed to accommodate roads, a stormwater structure, and building lots. The stream was identified as an intermittent, non-salmon id, averaging approximately 2 feet wide, with an average gradient of more than 20 percent. Based on these characteristics, the stream has been classified by WRI as Class 4. (See "Otak Review" below) The northern portion of the wetland is in an area identified as Tract 'E' on the Preliminary Plat Plan (Exhibit 9). The southern portion of the wetland, the stream, and two tracts, 'B' ("sensitive area") and 'C' ("tree retention") abut the south property line. Tract 'E' shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'B' and the area of the south wetland, the stream, and Tracts 'B' and 'C' shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'C.' The responsibility for protection and maintenance of Tracts 'B' and 'C,' in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements, shall be assigned to the Homeowners' Association. Such responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. In order to verify the potential impact on critical areas by the proposed development, the City retained the firm of Otak to provide a peer review of the previously cited Critical Area Study. In their report of April 3, 2014, "Vuecrest Estates Wetland and Stream Review" (Exhibit XX), Otak verified as accurate the wetland delineation as flagged in the field. Furthermore, the Category 2 wetland criteria under RMC 4- 3-0SOM are met. The Otak Review found, however, that the Class 4 stream (rating verified), does not appear to flow through the wetland, but rather begins at the top of the protected slope. Their recommendation is that the Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Staff further recommends that this be made a condition of approval. The Otak Review stated that wetland enhancement may result in increased disturbance ofthe wetland and buffer. A less invasive approach is recommended that requires that all wetland and buffer areas onsite be monitored for 5 years, once per year in the summer, as a condition of project approval. Therefore, a monitoring plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. ERC Report 13-000642, revised August 18, 2014 City of Renton Department of Comm VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of Jaly 1§, 2013 August 18, 2014 Mitigation Measures; anomic Development ental Review Committee Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Page 8 of9 1. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 2. Native Growth Protection Areas 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners' Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements. This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 3. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. Nexus; State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review; RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations 3. Stormwater Impacts; A 'Technical Information Report for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat," by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated May 21, 2013, was submitted with the land use master application. This report indicates that most of the undeveloped site drains to the Black River subbasin, following the stream channel at the southern portion of the site westward to discharge near the southwest corner of the property. From the site, the flow follows a vegetated channel near S so'h Street to a conveyance system at Talbot Road S (Exhibit 10). Development of the site would result in approximately 2.82 acres of impervious surface. Surface water runoff would be collected and conveyed to an on-site stormwater detention facility. A cast-in-place concrete storm detention water quality vault has been proposed on Tract 'A.' The proposed vault would present a 9 to 10-foot wall facing the westerly protected slope, at the top of a 9-foot (+/-) fill slope (Exhibit 11). Upon recommendation of staff, this vault was relocated somewhat to the east away from the top of slope. This change is reflected on the revised site plan dated July 15, 2014. Runoff was proposed to be discharged from this structure to the existing wetland at the top ofthe protected slope. During project review, it was determined that runoff should be conveyed in a closed system from the vault to the areawide system at the bottom of the slope and the drainage plan was revised accordingly (see "Earth," above). Mitigation Measures; 1. Discharge from the vault shall be tight-lined away from the protected slopes. Nexus; State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review; RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards 4. Plants Impacts; There are approximately 401 trees over 6 inches in diameter on the part of the property to be developed (excludes protected slope area on the west approximately half of the site). Most trees on this portion of the site would be removed prior to construction, except 122 within the wetland and wetland/stream buffer and 42 trees to be retained on "tree retention tract" and elsewhere. In the R-8 Zone, thirty percent of the significant trees must be retained or replaced. Based on the Tree Retention ERC Report 13-000642, revised August 18, 2014 City of Renton Deportment of Comm VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of J"IY 15, 2013 August 18, 2014 anomic Development ,ental Review Committee Report LUA13-00064Z; ECF, PP, MOD Page 9 of 9 formula (RMC 4-4-130.H), 140 trees must be replaced. The project proposal indicates that replacement of trees would occur as part of the post-construction landscaping. Trees to be planted in the landscape area associated with the public streets, however, must be installed prior to recording the plat. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted prior to issuance of the street and utility construction permits. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A D. 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. ,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; City of Renton; 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 pm on Friday, September 5, 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 -ih Floor, (425)430-6510. ERC Report 13-000642, revised August 18, 2014 ------I I SE --------J-1-I 1/4 SECTION :,1, ro i .i -))--. -_'---J ___ lil=-1/~UECRESTESTATJEGE:SS f', W.11 •. !~/ ;, ABT"~/ i~~// I , f:1 I / I !ii I I / ~ ii i hl .. i~~- s m >< :c 1-1 PRo.ECT SITE 1 1 1 , 1 1 1:.i..-: ~rJ~ ~I:r i j fl~ ~g11 11 I ~ I > : Ii i i ~~r srcb) l~I l/]1111 I I I I . I 1t--QL_-___li I ,, ~ D:I ~ I\J ml~~~ --:===-" -.. ..,lri.:.:1-1-.. MNCIIED 1~.:r:,m. .. ,I 11 Cl-:-Y OF cs, ~ SEN70N ' /:":...:i::,. I f T,.-_,. j Plon,~o/B,.dl,o/P"""• """'-' 0.o< WECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT W.Wfl0Ail00D DETIJLMAP @ NORTH O"-""'IGec..._E ~ DRS PRO.ET NO. '"02 iUUMI H l::H IM ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 Jh;1,lacor,,.-, ~• "'~~·,c """'""'lo~ not ,,.,-,,.,,d,,,....,.mma<,.ad~bao.•••n ...,....,.,.,.,nrio,~~b~e><oftt.,...,,,..,,.... -.... ~ .... ,, .. 1.,a-,,1;r,,, .. , .. , ..... s1~ __ CA __ _ H3 -30 T23N RSE E 1/2 ··<::·.: . 1'·--.i i ·-co !co co co .\ RM-~--\ _______________ j i ! S471hSI. ··--------~ -J_ "E,4111,SI R-14 ~Pew .i_L1 ! iLJ:);)~-, J3 -06 T22N RSE E 11" 0 200 400 1-W IFI 1:4,900 , I~-, -i ' 11 i i I i s»i"""'\ i RM-F ' ' -__ _R,1Q_ __ ·8 L R-14 Ri14 i _j -lf-4'--- t""" I I EXHIBIT 3 s 2, Talbot Urban Separator: ·sw 41:lt s ;===;==';:ii=~::="~H~L ) ® Talbot Urban Separator Rentw C-t;' L~n1t$ .---!Jil'!an '$1'1,'l;ir.tl~ 8~1,-v.tuy (Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005) EXHIBIT 4 (Revised 4/1 I) i ! ' j I I ;;! "' 0 ijll " < => ~ - . "' l le! " < ' I-' "' w I- "' w "' u w sl m >< :::c 1-1 Cl 1-1 -I U1 j ... I TRACT"F" 'r&fP I~ ~co::!£,f;_~ _ .. _,. __ .. _, .. ---·---• SE ... 1./4 SECTION 31, TOIWSHIP 23 ~ RANGE 5 £, · .. ··· 1V(!ECRESTES1flTES W.M .. RNSIOI "· I' .-·,. -. . -1· ---j] . ·.-' \ ·17 -iL[ ... 1R ,: : \.19· :: ..... u-. ,1. J -(~eu.: I I s ... v;.. 1 1' i>,c/ .' I I , l~I '\:.:::.:.~_::.{ L_..;:_.,;_J '"'l'l__ ___ ..:_...:_ ';, ·'-":' .--·/ -"-·-. 20 -i ....,_~-'.:,] .,.,J //_.,,--,',-;; ·/\?~~ ~~~~: -)Y TRACTYJ~ :J '·":' ·""lo~"~ '-,' r, . . .,, \ ,,'\ /' '. • / ' \ v/ -· \_'._) / / ____ _,,,,,, ' -... 1-.-,-~-"••1 01!!> CITY OF ~ RENTON 1-,. I ' ,:;.:;_ 1 * ,,.: ....... ...,_, --E~ l=IAPPR ...... _, --- PRFl/UIN.ARY SOF WCIME CAIC/U.A710N'i ~-, (<Lt -.J (<>I.-., ~ ....... (<>cWll<I" ._.,.............._. ___ -::9 ~~"""'-"""""'"""'"" CfNERAL NDITT ~":"'-~;J;·:t,;~ ,. ,w.......,_,,_....,.........,,.,,w ___ _ "'=-.:-~~:-==.w~~ ... @ NORTH -~ 'v'UECREST ESTAlES PRELIMINARY PL.AT CONCe'IlW. ROMl AND GRADHG Pl.AH llRS PRCI.ECT IIO. 12102 IAH, ,1, ,N •11:ll:l m >< :J: """' t,:I ~ en 0 92 183 _Mercator_Auxiiiary_Sphere Fe_et Regulated Slopes lnfonnation Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 07/02/2D13 This map is. a user generated statlcoutput from an lntetnet mapping site and !s for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map m.iy or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Ciiy .and County Labels Ci1y and County Boundary ofrier fj City af Renton Addresses 0 Parcels Slope City of Renton ;,,15% & <cc,15% IJ >25% & <=40% {Sens1tlve) II >40% & <=90% (Protected) • >90% (Protected) Notes None 0 1:2,199 City of Renton e Finance & IT Division ~ :::c '""' c:i '""' -I ...... 0 92 183 rcator_Auxiliary_Spi",ere Feet Landslide Hazard areas Information Technology w GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 07/02/2013 This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and ls for referer.ce only. Data layors that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or othsrwise reliable. THIS MAP IS r,.,;QTTO SE USED FOR NAV!GATJON Legend City and County Labels City and County Boundary 01~,er ;,,...J . (l City of Renton Addresses ·o Parcels Landslide • VERYHIGH • HIGH D MODERATE UNCLASS!Fc:D Notes tx:me 0 1: 2,199 Cityof~ Finance & IT Division TOP OF .";;TEEP SLOPE LEGEND [ ~ :J WETLAND ··,._··-.... STREAM ' ' '-, ' BUFFER -BUFFER AVERAGING ~ {REDUCTION) ~ nur-FER AVERAGING ~ (ADDITJQN) @ @ DATASITES • NGPASIGNS CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP VUECREST SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E, WM ClASS4 STREAM D CJ Ll D TRACT"A" U) w al: BUFFER AVERAGING (REDUCTION) 2,160SF 18 8! J_/.''::::;;l:==.:'::.-=-=-=~-.L-"n-~ ~ ·---··· ~O<?;~,/, ~ U) cAl'EGORY 11 WFTLAND 16 BUF ER AVERAGING {ADDIT)~N) BUFFER AVERAGING (ADDITION) 8,413 SF Scale 1" = 60' ~ 0 30 ~.~ .... ,,,~,.._,.,, ... ii,..: (~is) Jl>~I """l•"l >.>-1•·~ ·~·'""""'-"' EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 9 Zt9000-£LVnl S31Vl53 1S3~03f1J\ I I, f "f' I . ! ! ' ; I I I I I m.ar-c1,sa;-,a,,.z,o -..... ~~,.,"""""-"' ~-,r,,J&lBI!NI~ I J I L_J I I l I I J I I ------ ----- S31 V1S31S3lJ:J3flA I _J I __ \ I I rn I u I 1 r 1 Ir-~ l 11 0 " I 0 e; i I C)I w h---~-l~_I LL --:i:------~--s ovo~ 1oa1v1 _J 2 EXHIBIT 10 I l l ! I ~ ~ 0 8 I " ., ::, ~ - "' ' ~ a t;; ' w f-~ "' " ~I m >< ::c 1-4 m 1-4 -f '""' '""' ~-,:; __ I T~i::f" ;·,-:,'· ~ =•moNG ~=:;:::! " SE 1/ 4 SEVUECREST ESTATES E. W.ll •• · ... :,;--f/l ...... .!!! ---"--.. =>IOH aY I O,l,TE jAPl'R ~ ] I ,. -18 'II -19- ;-,~=· ' ' , ' { ' . ///-.~~.>"-<[ / -r <~£7 ..... "B" ·"·"';..,:~--______ ,,, TRACT-".C"'.. V .-~\- "; ·-I ;:::... I .&.7.=.:, ,?) ~-~ CITY i)I; RENTON Pt.>M;na,'a,;,d1,g1P"""' \II...._."'-"- l/UECREST ESTA1tS PRELIMINARY PLAT CRAW.GE camlCl. PI.J.N @ NORTH <>RAP11cSCALe t.......LJ' DRS Pflo.ECT .. 12102 IAH, ,1, ,IN, .j,:J/.j m >< ::c I-« "' ~ ..... N 0 92 183 -rcator_Auxi!iary_Sphere Feet Erosion Hazard Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 07102/2013 This map is a user generated static output rrorn an ln'.ernet mapping site and is for rciercnce only. Data layers that appear on this map mayo~ rrm.y not be accurate, current, or othcNJisc reliable. THIS MAP IS NOTTO BE USED FO.~ NAVIGATION Legend City and County Labels City and County Boundary oo.- (1 City of Ren:on Addresses D Parcels ~ Erosion None 0 1:2,199 Cityof~ Finance & IT Division October 31, 2013 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. ~G'l ~~~ ~lD ~~~ Serving tfie l'acific :Nortfiwest Since 1981 Project No. TE130415A Geonerco Properties WA, LLC 1441 N 34 '' Street Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98103-8904 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Geotechnical Review Vuecrest PrelinJinary Plat LUA13-000642 Reference: "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Avenue Residential Plat, 47XXS Smithers Avenue S, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date: February 25, 2013 "S.lope Setback, Smithers Avenue Residential Plat, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date: April 10, 2013 "Slope Setback Response, Viewcrest Estates Residential Plat, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date: July 15, 2013. Renton Municipal Code, Code Publishing Company., eLibrary, current thrnugh Ordinance 5691, passed May 20, 2013, City Website: http://rentonwa.gov/ Dear ·Mr. Waltier: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed geotechnical review of the above-referenced documents prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) which are being used to support a request by the Geonerco Properties WA, LLC (Geonerco) to obtain permits · for a 21-lot residential subdivision from the City of Renton. Authorization to proceed with this review was granted by Mr. Jamie Waltier of Geonerco and was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated August 14, 2013. The purpose of our review is to check for compliance with mininJum code standards, completeness, to note obvious factual errors, consistency of data with conclusions and standards of practice. To date, our services have included review of published and unpublished literature we have in our files, review of the ..referenced reports, review of the "Vuecrest Estates, Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Road and Grading Plan," Sheet C4, dated September 20, 2013 by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers (DRS), and preparation of this letter. · Kirkland 425-827-7701 • Everett • Tacoma 425-259-0522 253-722-2992 EXHIBIT 13 w~w.aesgeo.com Site and Project Description Based on available information and the description provided in the February 25, 2013 ESNW report, the 5.3 acre site consists of an undeveloped, wooded parcel located south of South 47'" Street at the intersection with Smithers A venue South where it enters into the site in Renton, Washington. Wetland tracts are mapped east and south portions of the site. Topography across that portion of the site to be developed slopes generally toward the south and west. Within the western portion of the site, a 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) (approximate) slope descends in excess of 100 vertical feet toward the western property line; total slope height is undetermined as topography presented on the referenced DRS Plan stops approximately 100 feet short of the west property line and does not show a toe of slope. A 3H: IV (approximate) slope descends to the south approximately 10 vertical feet toward a westerly trending ravine within the southerly portion of the site. The February 25'", 2013 ESNW report indicates that a visual slope reconnaissance was conducted across portions of the steep slope areas of the site and that no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed and that "stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good." It appears that ESNW did not have a detailed site plan showing current proposed development for preparation of the referenced February 25, 2013 report. The two subsequent reports referenced above describe currently proposed development and present stability sections that appear to be based on the referenced DRS Plan but do not list the specific reference. Proposed development as shown on the referenced DRS Plan includes a 21-lot subdivision with an estimated earthwork volume of approximately 3,300 cubic yards cut and 10,000 cubic yards fill. Development is concentrated to the flatter portion of the site and will occupy approximately the northeastern two-thirds of the property. Smithers A venue is to be extended south from 47"' Avenue to the central portion of tl1e site where the roadway will turn east and extend to the eastern property line as SE 186'" Place. A storm water vault is to be located within the southwest portion of the development area. Lots 1 through 8 and tlie storm water vault are situated along the top of the westerly descending 2H:IV slope. A 4-foot-high rockery wall is proposed along tile western edge of these lots and vault area. A 2H:1V fill slope will extend from the wall to tile pad grade. Excluding the height of the wall, the fill slope achieves a maximum slope height of up to approximately 20 vertical feet. As planned, the structures on Lots 1 through 8 will extend anywhere from a few feet to approximately 40 feet onto the proposed fill slope. As proposed, the storm water vault will be discharged into the westerly trending ravine within the southern portion of the site. Subsurface Conditions The referenced reports generally summarize subsurface conditions at the site as glacial till. The February 25, 2013 report indicates that soil "terraces were observed down the steep slope at the west side of the site which may correlate to the recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits, however, the proposed development will not extend to those locations. " Test pit logs presented with the February 25, 2013 report indicate medium dense to dense, moist to wet 2 sand to a depth of 8 feet in TP-1 within the northeast portion of the site; medium stiff to hard, moist to wet silt located along the top of the slope in TP-6 and TP-7, and between 2.5 and 8 feet below ground surface within TP-8 within the western portion of the site; and, medium dense to very dense, generally moist, silty sand with variable gravel below the sand in TP-1, below the silt in TP-8 and within TP-2 through TP-5 across the remainder of the site. Review of the Geologic Map of King County, Booth, Troost, Wisher, May 2006, indicates that recessional outwash and/or pre-Fraser, coarse grained non-glacial soils on the westerly descending siope within the western portion of the site and glacial till within the central and eastern portion of the site. An earlier publication titled: Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, Publication Date: 1965, Map Scale: 1 :24,000 indicates that the soils on the westerly descending slope within the western portion of the site consist of undifferentiated quaternary deposits of glaciofluvial sand and gravel, glaciolacustrine clay and sand, and non-glacial sand, clay and thin peat. Ground water was reported at a depth of 6 feet within the sandy soil reported in TP-1; ground water was not reported within the other test pits excavated at the site. Comments Based on our review, we have the following comments: 1. Our general impression is that subsurface conditions within all but the northeast portion of the site were treated in the reports as a single homogeneous unit, when it appears based on information presented on the referenced geologic maps, that site geology is more complex. Given the importance of slope stability to the project and the potential for geologic aspects of subsurface stratigraphy to play a major role in slope stability, the geology cross section of the slope and associated engineering properties should be defined in greater detail. A supplemental report should be prepared and should contain a geologic map and geologic cross-section(s). The map and section(s) should show the test pit locations, location and extent of geologic strata encountered, existing and proposed grade, proposed retaining walls, proposed buildings and conceptual depths of foundations. There may not currently be enough existing subsurface information to determine the presence of potentially adversely oriented interbeds of silt or other plane of weakness that could affect slope stability; additional, deeper subsurface exploration borings may be necessary. 2. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-3-050-Blc defines sensitive slopes as twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) and protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater. RMC 4-3-050-Jl defines "Geologic Hazards" and provides specific guidelines for activities on or within 50 feet of sites with geologic hazards. The following classifications for geologic hazards are taken directly from RMC 4-3-050-Jl: 3 a. Steep Slopes: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton 's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two foot (2') contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. ii. Steep Slope Types: (a) Sensitive slopes. (b) Protected slopes. b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. c. Erosion Hazards: i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen percent (15%). As indicated earlier in this letter, current development plans include placement of a 4 foot wall on the face of the westerly descending slope within the western portion of 4 the site. The wall is to support the toe of a 2H: 1 V fill slope to create support pads for the proposed residences and vault along the top of the slope. The residential structures on. these pads will extend into the sloping area. 3. Based on the classifications presented above, the slope on which the retaining wall/fill slope is to be founded is a regulated steep sensitive/protected slope (RMC 4-3-050-Jla) with high erosion hazard (RMC 4-3-050-Jlb(iii)), and high landslide hazards (RMC 4-3-050-Jlc(ii)). Based on these designations, development is prohibited per RMC 4-3-050-J5a. In order for development to be allowed, RMC 4-3-050-J2 requires that a study must demonstrate the following: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of~ stability analyses before and after development demonstrating how the three conditions as listed above are satisfiect.;inequired. rtvt~ ~ ~ II, IIS. (1. ue. c~1oc.1, ... ) 4. Grading regulations outlined in RMC 4-4-060L require that a line be established from which setbacks for structures and slopes is to be measured and a minimum setback for each are presented. The report documents imply that the line from which setback is to be measured is at the top of the existing westerly steep slope. Plans indicate that residential footings will extend into the steeply sloping fill within the western portion of the site. Based on the steepness of the slope (50 percent) a setback between the lowest outside edge of footings to daylight in the adjacent slope face would be more appropriate. 5. RMC 4-4-060 N6 indicates that creation of a permanent fill slope in excess of 15 feet high at a 40 percent gradient would create a protected steep slope and would not be allowed unless conditions of RMC 4-3-050 N2a(ii) are satisfied. As presented, the stability analyses evaluate the potential for deep-seated instability of the slope under both existing and proposed conditions. The analyses should also consider the stability of the proposed fill slope/wall where slopes in excess of 15 feet are proposed (Lots 1, 7, and 8). The conditions of RMC 4-3-050.J.2 a (i, ii, iii) as indicated in Comment 2 must be met. 6. The following Table presents a summary of factors of safety presented for existing and proposed conditions anticipated at the site as presented in the April 10, 2013 and July 15, 2013 reports. During our review of the analyses, several issues were noted 5 . £cue,, I which require re-evaluation of various conditions and presentation of revised factors of safety. Factor of July 15, 2013 Safety April 10, 2013 Residential Area Vault Area Existing Proposed Exist Proposed Existing Prooosed Static 2.127 1·' 1.9192 2.2003 2.091 2•5 2.1373 2.0403·5•6 (1.629)4 (1.585)4 Seismic 1.323 1•2 1.2282 1.3822 l.3662•5 (1.095)4 1.3992 ·' 1.3472·5·6 (1.236) (1.175)4 (J.090)4 1. Slice thickness is less than 1 foot between toe of slope and exit pomt. Exit pomt should be re-evaluated and modified. 2. Location of center/radius of failure circle shown on section does not agree with center/radius listed in calculation. 3. Missing results for slip circle center and slices -cannot evaluate results. 4. Value in parenthesis is presented on calculation sheets -does not agree with value indicated on section 5. Failure circle analyzed and results presented is inconsistent with results on section -entry/exit points for failure circle indicate a relatively small portion of the slope. 6. The· vault should be modeled as a surcharge rather than a region with strength pararnt:ters. Stability analyses conducted on the westerly descending slope should be re-evaluated based on understanding of subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the slope enhanced through Comment 1, above. 7. ESNW indicates that rockeries will be used to "face" fill slopes. Rockeries may be used to mitigate erosion of cut slopes where very dense native soil is exposed. Umeinforced rockeries are not engineered structures and where in excess of 4 feet high (including imbedment depth), should not be used in place of retaining walls. 8. As proposed storm water from the detention vault is to be directed toward the southerly ravine and ultimately toward the westerly descending slope, ESNW has identified the soils on the slope as "high erosion hazard" and should consider alternate recommendations to prevent water from being directed over site slopes. Alternatively, the applicant should demonstrate that flow from the outfall system will not cause erosive flows. 9. February 25, 2013 report indicates design in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The City of Renton has adopted the 2012 IBC. Seismic design of structures should be in conformance with the 2012 IBC including recommended seismic surcharge on walls. Closure This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 6 If you should have any questions, or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Tacoma, Washington MT/pc TE130415A,3 Projects\20130415\TE\WP 7 Maire Thornton, P.E. Senior Engineer Elizabeth Higgins From: Sent: To: Subject: Good morning Elizabeth: Maire Thornton <mthornton@aesgeo.com> Mond_ay, November 18, 2013 11:21 AM Elizabeth Higgins RE: Vuecrest in Renton Thank you for the positive input. Your thoughtfulness has brightened this cold gray day and has put a positive perspective on the start of the Week for me. The second sentence means that the conditions have not been met and that they should demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions by providing the results of stability analyses for existing and proposed site conditions. The changes indicated in red (see below) may clarify the intent. The sentence may have been clearer if it had been written as follows: The results of stability analyses which demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions listed above are required for both existing and proposed site conditions. Text taken from report: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated an the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the r~ferenced reports. The results of the stability analyses before and after development demonstrating how the three conditions as listed abore are satisfied £/Ii are required. Hope that helps! Please make a note: AES! Tacoma has not moved but our street name has changed to Commerce Street Maire Thornton, P.E. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 I Tacoma, Washington 98402 Cl 425-766-7340 0 !253-722-2992 FI 253-722-2993 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you hove received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this informatiqn is strictly prohibited. · 1 .. _ .. -~·_,,,_, ___ " _________ -----------,-.. ~--~~-"~~--------·-··---M·~------·----------m-. l/.V.Nlhortcru.vser.con1 . HI.IRTCROWSER February 24, 2014 Mr. Greg Laird Otak -Water and Natural Resources 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents -Vuecrest Residential Development 4800 Block Smithers Avenue S Renton, Washington City of Renton Project No.: LUA13-000642 1901 7-00 Dear Greg: This letter provides a summary of our geotechnical review of the geotechnical permit documents pertaining to the above-referenced development site. Our work was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Task Order dated January 30, 2014 as authorized by Otak on February 7, 2014. PERMIT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED We reviewed the following geotechnical permit documents: • Geotechnical Engineering Study by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW), dated February 25, 2013; • Slope Setback Letter by ESNW, dated April 10, 2013; • Geotechnical Review Letter by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc (AESI), dated October 3 ·1, 20·13; • Slope Setback Letter by, dated April 10, 2013; • Response to Geotechnical Review by [SNW, dated December 2, 2013; • City of Renton email review comments by Elizabeth Higgins, dated December 9, 2013 • Geotechnical Addendum by ESNW, dated December 10, 2013; and • Preliminary Plat Plan (Cl) and Grading Plan (C4) by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, dated December, 2013; 1700 Westlake Avenue North. Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109-6212 Fax 206.328.5581 Tel 206.324.9530 EXHIBIT 14 .. .. Otak -Water and Natural Resources r:ebruary 24, 2014 1901 7-00 Page 2 REVIEW COMMENTS Based on our review of the above-referenced documents, it is our opinion that the app!fcant's geotechnical engineer (ESNW) has addressed the review comments provided by the City of Renton peer review geotechnical engineer (AES!; letter dated October 31, 2013) in a manner that is generally consistent with current geotechnical practice in our local area. We understand that no additional follow-up review by AES! has occurred after the ESNW response. However, in their December 2, 2014 response to the AES! review comments, ESNW submitted additional slope stability analyses and addressed AESl's questions regarding geologic cross section and deeper soil conditions. Additionally, in their December 10, 2013 letter, ESNW also provided the minimum risk statement (three conditions of no adverse development impact), as required by Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050-)2.b) and requested by the City of Renton in their email correspondence dated December 9, 2013. A brief summary of the main geotechnical review comments by AES! and final responses by ESNW, along with our comments, is provided below for your information: 1. AES! commented that additional geologic cross sections and more detailed and deeper subsurface information was required for the slope stability analysis. ESNW generally responded in their December 2 letter that additional explorations should not be necessary since the test pit explorations confirmed dense, glacially-derived soil and perched groundwater conditions across the site, and that the risk of deeper subsurface uncertainty (such as risk of a potential weaker soil slippage plane) is very low. Given the geologic mapping of glacial soils at the site and the relatively low inclination of the steep slopes (about 50 percent, or 2!-lorizontal:1Vertical [1 H:1V]), we concur this assessment is consistent with common geotechnical engineering practice. 2. The current proposal is to construct house footings on the planned fill slope, with a setback of 20 feet from the existing top of the steep slope area. AES! commented that the proposed 2H:1V fill slope at the top of the existing steep slopes (sensitive area) should also be considered a regulated sensitive/protected slope (if greater than 15-foot high), with the additional development setback requirement behind the top of the planned fill slopes. ESNW responded in their December 2 letter by reducing the fill slope height to 15 feet and providing a 1 0-foot setback from the existing top of steep slope area to the toe of the planned fill slope, while maintaining the 20-foot setback from the existing (native) top of slope. Given the provided slope stability analysis showing a static and seismic safety factor against slope failure of 1.78 and 1.22, respectively, for this condition, we would consider this a reasonable design based on common geotechnical engineering practice.· For .. .. Otak -Water and Natural Resources February 24, 20·14 1901 7-00 Page 3 reference, slope stability safety factors of 1.5 in the static case and 1.1 in the seismic case are generally considered adequate in local geotechnical engineering practice. 3. AESI commented that there were several issues with the initial slope stability analyses provided. In our opinion, these were adequately addressed by ESNW with their supplemental slope stability runs submitted on December 2, 2013, based on common geotechnical engineering practice. 4. The original design proposal included a 4-foot high rockery at the base of the planned 2H:1V fill slope. AESI commented that an unreinforced rockery should not be used as a retaining wall structure. ESNW responded by removing this rockery from the design. In addition, the toe of the fill slope was also moved 1 O feet back from the existing top of steep slope area, as discussed in item 2 above. 5. A stormwater detention vault is proposed near an existing drainage ravine at the south end of the site, with a planned release of stormwater into the existing ravine. Given the classification of the site soils as "high erosion hazard," AES! commented that the applicant should demonstrate that such stormwater discharge will not cause erosive flows within the existing ravine, or provide alternate discharge design to prevent stormwater directed over the site slopes. ESNW responded in their December 10 letter that storm drainage facilities have been designed to discharge stormwater at a pre-developed flow rate into the existing ravine, which will reduce the potential for instability. While this sounds like a reasonable approach, we recommend that the applicant be required to provide a storrnwater collection and discharge design stamped by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in storrnwater design. This design should specifically address the potential for increased surface erosion and potential for slope instability with associated with the proposed design. SUMMARY ESNW provided the following code-required minimum risk statement in their December 10 letter: • The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; • The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and • The proposal can be safely accommodated on the site. Given the presence of competent glacial soils at the site, the relatively low inclination of the existing steep slopes (2H:1 V), and the slope stability analyses demonstrating static and seismic safety factors -.. Otak -Water and Natural Resources February 24, 2014 ---·---·---- 19017-00 Page 4 against slope failure exceeding the generally accepted values of 1.5 in the static case and 1.1 in the seismic case, we consider this a reasonable statement based on common geotechnical engineering practice in this area. USE OF THIS LETTER Work for this project was performed, and this letter was prepared, in accordan.ce with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Otak and the City of Renton, or their consultants, for specific application to the referenced site, This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We based our review on subsurface conditions interpreted from subsurface soil and groundwater conditions reported by others. The nature and extent of conditions between the explorations may differ from those presented. If significant subsurface variations become evident during construction, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer of record be consulted to provide revised design recommendations, as needed. CLOSING We thank you for this opportunity to provide geotechnical consulting services. If you have any questions, please contact Rolf Hyllseth at (206) 826-4586. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. ROLF B. HYUSHH, PE Associate Geotechnical Engineer ro If. hyl Is e th@h a rtcrowse r.co 111 MICHAEL BAILEY, PE CEO mike.bailey@hartcrowser.com L:\jobs\ 1901700\Geotech Peer Review -Vuecrcst Residential Development.doc I I ;,i/ Denis Law ct -_:Mayo:...r -----~: fJ ~\ City o~ • ··~l · u· ~/m,· , ·u ' ' I ' ,' I I l I i i 1,-J& l~ ) Lf, April 11, 2014 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Mr. Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes 1441 N 34th Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 Re: LUAB-000642, Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Waltier This letter is sent to inform you of additional analysis required before the Environmental Review Committee can make a SEPA determination on the Vuecrest Estates project. Upon satisfactory completion of the Items listed herein, the "hold" will be lifted, the ERC and public hearing rescheduled, and project review recommenced. As you are aware, the City has had continuing concerns regarding geology at the site of the proposed project and the impact the project may have on the hydrology .in the area. Therefore, please provide the following: 1. An analysis of the anticipated full water weight of the proposed storm drainage vault on Tract 'A' and the slope, 2. Proposed structural design for the vault construction (i.e. supported by pilings if applicable), 3. A Level 2 downstream quantitative analysis through Talbot Road S; include all data and all assumptions for the existing conditions, 4. A determination that the capacity of the downstream system is sufficient with the proposed project, and s. A Level 3 flow control analysis demonstrating conservation discharge to full 100-year storm event is recommended for this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 425-430-6581. Sincerely ?/;~~ Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner · Department of Community and Economic Development cc: C.E. "Chip"' v•ncent Jennlfer Hennlng Vane55a Dolbee Steve lee Rohini Nair Larry Warren EXHIBIT 15 Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington ~8057 • rentonwa.gov TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for VUECREST ESTATES Preliminary Plat 4800 Block of Smithers Avenue S in Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 12102 Renton File No. LUA13-000642 Owner/Applicant Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Report Prepared by [l!li~l D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, Suite 232 Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date May 21, 2013 Report Revision Issue Date ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report July 15, 2014 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat EXHIBIT 16 Page i of iii City of Renton (I THE CoE LAw FIRM VIA E-MAiL ONLY John C. Baringer Vice President/Corporate Counsel Georterco Management, LLC. 1441 North :,4th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98103 .r I. I.{.'" July 14, 2014 jcoe@coelaw.com JUL i 6 /Oh CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Re: Campen Spring& Condominium Association ("Association") Letter ofintent-Vuecrest Project Dear Mr. Baringer; Yow company has been working on a project adjacent to and upslope from. the Association known as Vuecrest (''Project''). You have asked the Association if you could tie into the Associatiou's storm drain system. You have asked (or this letter of intent as the City of Renton has requested that our clients submit to the City a signed letter of intent regarding the Association's willingness to grant the easement.and your client's willingness to abide by certain conditions ofthe grant. As such, I have been authorized to issue this letter on behalf of the Association. At the Association's regular and duly noticed monthly Board meeting on June 24, 2014, the Board approved proceeding with allowing the Project to tie into the storm drain systein at a Cafoh Basin No. 14 shown on sheet 7 of 33 of the Campen Springs Apartments engineering plans prepared by Daley-Morrows Poblete, Inc., dated June. 19, 2002 in a roadway a few tens of feet west of the birdcage. (Not atthe upstream bypass pipe.) This stom1 drain system handles the stonn waler runoff from the Association's development. This would keep the Project's storm water out of the Association's water features, but it would route it through.the Association's detention vault. This approval is coutingent upon: L The execution of mutually agreeable temporary construction easements and pennarienf easements effecting the tie in. {As discussed previously, theAss.ociat.ion will require EXHIBIT 17 John C. Baringer July 14, 2014 Page2 that both the temporary and permanent easewer:its .contain language requiring all upslope homes jointly and severally defend, indemnify mid hoid the Association harmless from any and all losses; damages and the like, for (i) the. construction, use, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the lines and storm drain system and catch basins on Association property, (ii) any and all costs for cleanouts and/or fines imposed by the City of Renton for the Association's lines and storm drain system and catch basins, (iii) any da,mages to or breach of the Association's system caused by flooding, or acts and/or omissions of the upslope homes. There will be other conditions as well, including, but not limited to, payment and reimbursement of legal .and expert fees and costs.) 2. Details ahd ealculatioris to be confirmed by Owen Reese when available from DR Strong, to ensure the Association's storm water system could safely and sufficiently handle the discharge without flooding. 3. Your plans include a couple other elements related to stonu water management and slope stability such as: a. The NW comer of the Vuecrest property will require building up by several feet. From a geological/slide perspective, the Association will insist that the retaining wall be a properly engineered retaining wall rather than just a simple rockery embankment to hold. the fill. (Thus, if there is any movement of the hillside in the future, rocks from retaining wall will be less likely to come loose and tumble dQwnhill into Campen Springs.) Second, in relation to the substantial amount of fill required for a few Qf the western line of lots, we would insist that, rather than using native soils from the site as fill, imported, more structured fill be utilized to provide greater stability to the slope/lot foundation. b. Finally, for the other western lots, utilizing the small slope of the lot to enable storm water runoff and natttral permeation to the soll is preferable to digging a trench for an intetceptor pipe with gravel fill. Neither party is bound to one another until the execution of ahy easements. This letter of intent is not intended to be, and shall not constitute, a binding and enforceable agreement bet\veen the parties. It merely sets forfu their present intentions with respect to the terms proposed, which terms may or may not become part of a definitive agreement, as a basis for future negotiations. It is not based upon any existing agreement between the parties, .and is not intended to impose arty obligation other than an obligation to bargain in good faith. No other legal ot equitable rights, resp01,sibilities or duties are created hereby, or by the response to any competitive bid proposal. The Association shaU have no liability with respect to this letter of intent, for any incidental, consequential, exemplary; special; indirect or punitive John C. Baringer July 14, 2014 Page3 <I damages, including loss of use, loss of revenue, anticipated profits or lost business, even ifit has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Sincerely, THE COE LAW FIRM, PLLC JAC cc: Campen Springs Condominium Association June 24, 2014 ES-2660.01 Geonerco Proeerties, LLC 1441 North34hStreet,#200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Proposed Stormwater Vault Vuecrest Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers Vuecrest Estates Vault Detail Sheet Dated June 19, 2014 Dear Jamie: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to provide an assessment regarding the weight of the proposed stormwater vault and its effect on the adjacent slope. Based on information provided by the project structural engineer (Mr. Dan Kosnik, P.E.), the vault, when full and including 18 inches of soil cover will weigh 1,500 pounds per square foot. With a footprint of 5,900 square feet, the maximum weight of the vault will be 4,425 tons. Based on information provided by the project civil engineer (Mr. Maher Joudi, P.E.), the volume of soil displaced by the vault will be 3,676 cubic yards or 99,250 cubic feet. Using an in-situ soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot, the weight of soil displaced by the vault will be 5,955 tons. Therefore, even when the vault is full of water, it is 1,530 tons lighter than the soil it replaced. As currently designed, the setback from the top of the steep slope to the edge of the vault is 40 to 58 feet from the top of the steep slope. Given the setback from the slope and the fact that the vault will weigh 1,530 tons less than the soil it replaces, the vault will increase the overall stability of the slope REC EI\/ ED JUL 16 2014 EXHIBIT 18 CITY OF RE1'HON 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Geonerco Properties, LL June 24, 2014 If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW, LLC ES-2660.01 Page2 N ~ ~ 0 0 0 I " :, => ~ - l "' le i SC I- ' "' w I- :;Ji "' u w 5 ' I I l I i i ,r-,,.;,.,,.,,, 1'/r,.pJ A U"otlru:t<F;J- SE 1/4 SEcnoN 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANG£ 5 E, W.M .. VUECREST ESTATES ,,,,,.-,,,,.,~~,.·- (!d/->Wnc""""""I / ~'!'",.};'!,':, ..,,,...,..,,,. (ns.J II l'>,:;fJl</J"""">---1-,~oo· ... , ff"'"'-~---· -·= ~=-= ~"Jrz><>-......___ .r."Acce«I..I() .........._ ,.,,,.,,.,,,_,.,,.,_.,, OEriHnofi-.:,, ---._,_ 1i_ ,.._'"' --., •w .,..,,.111«..-lf/'-"""".:,'.t:~:J; ,=--=l<(=/M',J\ --Fla-=-) '\ F----~IL ------L__~""'"'" ~~,------· 1~ -· ---~rwr ~ E--------------------------1 ~-----"'a°"""'~• "-AM"'-,?.--~-- .,_ ,.,,,\ ~-_::--&_r,p,,,_----------... -,w----d b a.'.:;'"'™"""""'~-- B PLAN lt1£W SEf!!ON A=! , . ...,. ---~ ------- ~,:z:g.·-==•= t~"·=· r \... ... ....,_ .. ~''""""'"""' "''"''"""'" ~_,., i::._ .,..;,;,..;;,~-.-.:Ji.'-:ii.i~~ ----1--- '~"''""°"""(T,P} r-: --------• ---------------------\-----------_!<\!_OCOOI _W< '1_ ill.l/,2--a!--------r----------)---- ,·roo""""""' srr,=,,_,.,,.....~ SECTION B-B , ... ,. -~ .~• ~ D.R. STRONG ~ I~·" '"··::" .. ·--~ ~-ll~R~II:;:';~ '-,,_...,, .. ; -"""""""""''""'.,,."-""·"" ' "'----,.,,,. .. n......-'\...,.,,,,,.,... ... ~,,-m,,~ 1--M,lolOl[j) -=-~ "™"" I ~ I"" I••• -= j , .. ;.:. I I ® I *' ~~T:Tg: ~ _ --elonnln;/!k,ild..,/Publ,o ~"'1<• Jo;,\- VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT VAULTDETAILS @ NORTH CJW'11C""""-" w· t- '""'"·"'" APPLICATION ANO PROPOSE S!GNIFICANCE-MmGATE REVISED /NATION OF NON- M) ~·"""--=.1'.,.--t..., =:;;.~:;:~:.-;;;:-~:::__ l,pl'I.IC..,.110fl· .lutyll.l!n• -otM<llo ... ~z.,cr.l'P -(Sa'AJ-.~Plzt!.Nl<w DO!._,... ___ ,_ ... {~), """"' ...... _..... ... ....i .. C,ttl<ol,-o....,rt.-~------.r------ n,o i,mject "ill~• ,ut,~ t, V,• AA1C ol.-1-UQ; M•t H<J5<), ~ ... C ol.-9-070: ,.,,,c .. ,-=. f.MC ol.-Hl<I; .,.i °"""pr,ibblo .,,.-n '"" ,..,,_., u ·-· 1"" i,,1--., Mltlc>""" ,.._.., VOi U.C~ 1>e 1rnoo«<la1>~ propa..,l l!<"ioel-.,_....,,-Mltll\llonM•,,,.,,.,od<!....,..,,,}edlrnP"«>"°' <,,...,od...,,-,a<ld·""~"""'"'-·-· ~""""""'"""K"""al'l"""'°"'.-.,,,,,...,,,......,lod-"'/fr,,Trojfkr<,poct_........pn,_b~ r~-T,aff,;.:,,P.,,,..-...... lll.lOJJ. m,,-•-~---..ic,-,od<>dod!ol',~,,,,iem,t,!olS""""''""'°>'•ln¢"'10!' W.U""° _,, fne. duM!Mo,,10. lQH JbooPP'-!<lioll~"rtt,r;,,"""""""'0•'""''-''nt ... Critf<,:,l-~~p,opomJOl'W-4 ~._...,1,,,;..-.o,,,t! .. )Cil CERTIFICATION I, ,_j.,(, };Y", a?l1t1 d , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted in ·?, conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Z,/:2z~2/U Signed:~.~~ Date: STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ~:S: ,,..,\:,' v:::, --V q11,-1\~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. \\\\ Notary Puliifc:J and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): My appointment expires: A,,:4, L':::,J ~ '\ ';,) Ql1 ------s,1"'""'~"'-J"-1,---=~----------'-T,----'""--"''""-'---- Agencies Jamie Waltier Maher Joudi, D.R. Strong Schneider Homes See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ---... Dated: -'-2"''"'' b""".>-: ~?.,.,o,,_i ..,.()...,Oa.1-"l'-1- See Attached Applicant Contact Owner Parties of Record ry Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ____ tJ .... · -"-z.._(ai,,,.,.... -13+-'-r~,i J-J~e..,,_:s_;::r-------------- My appointment expires: -, • [cfj v''.,'. J cJ q c7'-0 {---j u J Vuecrest Estates LUA13-000642, ECF, PP template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology u 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 Box 47015 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) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WOFW -Larry Fisher• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamish Tribal Office• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division• Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 s. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Tim McHarg Director of Community Development 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Newcastle, WA 98056 Puget Sound Energy Kathy Johnson, 355 110'" Ave NE Mailstop EST 11W Bellevue, WA 98004 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172'' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Jack Pace Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov • **Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton. WA 980S5 Nancy Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 980S5 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 73S S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNED Ct S RENTON. WA 98055-7328 Henrv Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Town homes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Thu Bui 4 709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055 Roger Jaoues 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett as Renton, WA 980SS-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS 111, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton. WA 98055-8355 Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-6272 William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Chervl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Tammy Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Johnny Cheng 4 739 B~rnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Ginnv Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #55202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 ,,;; Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Ltanva Terrell Jones 4769 Morris Ave S, Unit 5302 Renton, WA 98055-6374 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 10604 NE 38th Pl, Suite 232 Kirkland. WA 98033 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6374 ; William & Lvnn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila. WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055 i $ City of r ;':_ s Il I CJ fl NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) REVISED A Land Use Master Application, submitted June 2013, has been revised and resubmitted to the Department of Community & Economic Development {CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application, the revisions, required permits, and upcoming project review schedule. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: July 22, 2014 LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Vuecrest Estates In 2013, the project proponent submitted a land use master application for subdivision of a 9.31 acre property located in the Talbot planning area ofthe City of Renton. During the application review, the City of Renton required additional information to be submitted. A "hold" was placed on the project review. That additional information has been submitted and project review recommenced. The project has been revised as follows: there are now 20 lots proposed (not 21), some lot sizes have changed, the primary access road has been realigned slightly to the east, a rockery retaining wall has been eliminated, grading on the west side of the portion of the site to be developed has been modified, and the surface water control plan revised. The project is subject to State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA} compliant environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision. The project proponent has submitted a Modification request of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. The site has two Category 2 wetlands, one of which connects to a class 4 stream. The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per net acre (du/a), Residential 8 (8 du/a) and Residential 14 (14 du/a). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.04 acre portion that is zoned R 8 is proposed to be developed. Subdivision into 20 lots would result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree retention. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a "dead end" road from the intersection of SE 1861 h St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a closed conveyance system on site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information Report with the application. PROJECT LOCATION: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS·M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There wilt be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period wi!I follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: May 21, 2013 June 7, 2013; Hold removed July 22, 2014 Maher Joudl, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers; 10604 NE 38th Place #232; Kirkland, WA 98033; Eml: maher.joudi@drstrong.com 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, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Vuecrest Estates/LUAB-000642, ECF, PP NAME:------------------------------------ MAILING ADDRESS:----------------City/State/Zip:----------- TELEPHONE NO.: --------------- Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: i ¢ r City of• . . r { sJJ,I(jfJ Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Ptat Review DOE, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Building and Construction Permits Critical Areas Report, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Stream/Lake Study, Traffic Impact Statement, and Wetland Assessment 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 September 16, 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF), Residential Medium Density lRMD), and Residential low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential 1 {R-1), Residential 8 (R" 8), and Residential 14 (R-14) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the RMC 4-2-110; RMC 4-3-050; RMC 4-9-070; RMC 4-7-080; RMC 4-3-110; 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. The applicant shalf comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TraffEx Northwest Traffic Experts, dated April 23, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Wetland Resources Inc., dated May 10, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2013. 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.: Vuecrest Estates/LUA13-000642, ECF, PP NAME: --------------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS; ________________ City/State/Zip: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: --------------- i 4 City of r <_. s JJ t fj Il Comments on the above appllcatlon must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, CED -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on August 13, 2014. This matter is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on September 16, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; {425) 430-6581; Eml: ehiggins@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 04;\ · le(•,., .. (.:l'""· t. -5,~ '-e t I ~1A t,""-'· II o"'"pESPos,-1;,,_ Qt,;, /:}~~---.... ,. S:....ot4 UJ(/) z ' ~ARlliRF~ 1-:'.3 -;) , -1,1,..l'/liir\1'111', g~ 02 ·,M $ 00.46° UJ~ 0004285528 JUL 23 2014 ~U::. MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 98032 Mr. Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 3: Kirkland, W .i.c, FREY-iVlisir@m·~: '. ·l .i X 980 NFE 10367l310007/24/l4 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND : DR STRONG CONSULTING ENGR5 620 7TH AVE KIRKLAND WA 98033-5665 RETURN TO SENDER 1 I I Ji 111, 1 I l i I I,'' 11 ! 1 I• 111 I 11 i '1] ! 1 I 1 ! I' i I;;' Iii i Ii 1, 11 I I' 1 i 111 I \ «.::..,· ~ J :;; -,< i·; ) ?--..',...___ ;,.._, -~ ___c_,>- 11 i. - ----D~eM:n;::o:L:_w ___ .............. r . City l J..&··r ,;r0·.r1 July 22, 2014 Mr. Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38 1h Place, Suite 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Re: LUA13-000642, Vuecrest Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Joudi As you are aware, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, in July 2013, determined that several issues related to the proposed Vuecrest Preliminary Plat required additional study. Therefore, on July 16, 2013, a "hold" was placed on the review of the project application. Since that time, additional studies have been submitted, the project design has been revised, and a request for modification from Renton Municipal Code has been submitted. Therefore, the "hold" has been removed from the project and review of the application recommenced. This project is scheduled to be heard by the Renton Hearing Examiner at a public hearing at 10 am on Tuesday, September 16, 2014. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall (7'h floor). If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-430-6581. Sincerely ~-~ffe~?'"':.'" Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development cc: Parties of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Nancv Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNED Ct S RENTON, WA 98055-7328 Henrv Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Thu Bui 4 709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaoues 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Kolin Tavlor KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue. WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8355 Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 William & Stephanie Struvk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Tammv Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Johnnv Cheng 4 739 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Ginnv Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #55202 Renton. WA 98055-8398 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeeo Natt 866 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Ltanva Terrell Jones 4769 Morris Ave S, Unit S302 Renton, WA 98055-6374 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 10604 NE 38th Pl, Suite 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lvnn Sebring 4706 Burnett as Renton, WA 98055-7328 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila. WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 INVOICE 808 sw third avenue, suite 300 portland, oregon 97204 503.287.6825 I fax 503.415.2304 HanmiGlobal Partner www.ocak.com Elizabeth Higgins City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Fir Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED APR O l 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION March 24, 2014 Project No: 032385.COO Invoice No: 000031400179 Project 032385.COO Vuecrest Estates Critical Areas and Buffer Review For Professional Services Ending March 07, 2014 Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount PIG/Sr. PM Civil Laird, Gregory 2.00 184.00 368.00 Scientist II Redman, Jessica 5.00 7500 375.00 Scientist 111 Miller, Darcey 6.75 112.00 756.00 Scientist IV O'Brien, Kevin 8.50 123.00 1,045.50 Totals 22.25 2,544.50 Total Labor Total this Invoice A finance charge will be assessed to all overdue accounts. 2,544.50 $2,544.50 March 24, 2014 Ms. Elizabeth Higgins City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 HanmiGbbal Partner 808 sw third avenue, suite 300 I portland, oregon 97204 503.287.6825 I fax 501.41 s.2304 www.otak.com Re: Vuecrest Estates Critical Areas and Buffer Review-Otak Project No. 32385. C Invoice for Professional Services Dear Elizabeth; Our invoice for work performed on the Vuecrest Estates Critical 1\reas and Buffer Review project is attached. This letter summarizes the work performed through March 7, 2014. Work conducted during this billing period included in this invoice was for the following: • • Review of project documents and data assessment Site visit to assess existing conditions • • Initiate preparation of technical review memo Project management If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Otak, Incorporated Kevin O'Brien Project Manager integrated Cesign == smart solutions [111:1.1] February 19, 2014 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Vuecrest Estates -Variance Request Background DRS-Project No. 12102 The Protct is proposing to extend Smithers Avenue S through the property, which turns into SE 1861 Place before stubbing to the Project's eastern property line. Variance Requested RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards, H. Dead End Streets: For dead end streets longer than 700 feet in length, two means of access and fire sprinklers required for all houses beyond 500 feet. Although the applicant does not agree that the Project is proposing a dead end street, and is in fact providing a second means of access by way of the proposed roadway stub, a variance from providing a second means of access is being requested per the City of Renton's request. Per the City of Renton Variance Submittal Requirements, in order to approve a variance request, the following four conditions must exist: 1. The applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, and location or surroundings of the subject property; and the strict application of the Building and Zoning code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical classification. 2. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. 3. Approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 4. The approval, as determined the Reviewing Official, is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Justification 1. Providing a secondary access would require roadway construction and right of way dedication through the neighboring property to the east, of which the applicant has no control. Disallowance of this variance would limit the proposed roadway to 170 lineal feet (700' from intersection of S 4yth Street and Burnett Court S) and would potentially eliminate 12 to 14 lots from the proposed development, which would essentially terminate the Project until such time as development of the property to the east occurs. February 19, 2014 Page 2 of 2 2. The Project is proposing to stub the proposed roadway to the eastern property line to continue the progress of what will eventually be a fully looped road system back to 102nd Avenue SE. The applicant understands the City of Renton Fire Marshal concerns and is proposing a 12-foot paved alley way behind proposed lots 12 through 16 with adequate turning radii into, and out of said alley way. This alley way, which could double as a hammerhead turn-around, is in addition to the proposed, 90-foot diameter, temporary cul de sac. Additionally, the curb-to-curb width of the proposed roadway is 28 feet; four feet wider than the standard City of Renton roadway requirement. Given the measures mentioned, we do not feel that approval of this variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated 3. Approval of the variance request would allow for development of this plat which would be in line with the neighboring developments in size, magnitude and density. Granting of this variance would not constitute special privilege inconsistent with projects in the vicinity. 4. Approval of the variance request is the minimum required to allow for this development to proceed. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions or request any clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincer,ly yours, D. R ~!{"RONG Consulting Engineers Inc. I ' MAJ --------/ udi, P.E. ice President Enclosure: Project Site Plan R:\2012\ 1\12102\Correspondence\Letters\out\Deviation Request.doc Elizabeth Higgins From: Sent: To: Subject: Good morning Elizabeth: Maire Thornton <mthornton@aesgeo.com> Monday, November 18, 2013 11:21 AM Elizabeth Higgins RE: Vuecrest in Renton Thank you for the positive input. Your thoughtfulness has brightened this cold gray day and has put a positive perspective on the start of the week for me. The second sentence means that the conditions have not been met and that they should demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions by providing the results of stability analyses for existing and proposed site conditions. The changes indicated in red (see below) may clarify the intent. The sentence may have been clearer if it had been written as follows: The results of stability analyses which demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions listed above a re required for both existing and proposed site conditions. Text taken from report: c The proposal will not i,1rrease the thteat of the geological hazard tu adjacent or abutting oroperties beyond pre-development conditions,. and (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) c, The proposal Vv'iil not adver"seiy in?poct other critical ureas; and -.__-The deveiopment can be safeiy accommodated on the site. fill' 1/irce cundi!iuns fi.,:tt:cl uhon: huY1' no! hct'!l sofi\'finl hl· 1he re(c-rcth.l'd n.:,Por!.\ Fhc res11/1_., nf I-he \fuhili1_1· (ll!Ul_1· . .,es hL'/fffe und l{/hT derdnp!IIL'llf demun\lnl!in,\.!, h(11·-: rhe three condi!/ons us lf.1.;fcd ahnn: ln·e su!i\/1\1d tl-!i are rc:LJ1tircd Hope that helps! Please make a note: AESI Tacoma has not moved but our street name has changed to Commerce Street Maire Thornton, P.E. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 I Tacoma, Washington 98402 Cl 425-766-734001253-722-2992 Fl 253-722-2993 This emoif and ony fifes transmitted with it ore confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error pleose notify the system manager. Pleose notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified thal disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. 1 From: Elizabeth Higgins [mailto:EH11., ins@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:27 AM To: Maire Thornton Subject: Vuecrest in Renton Hi Maire Jamie Waltier forwarded the AES report to me last week. I will be meeting with an engineer from DR Strong this afternoon to hear how they intend to address the issues your report raises. I am very pleased with the report. Thank you very much! I have one question. On page 5, #3, would you please clarify the following: "The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of the stability analyses before and after development demonstrating [demonstrates?) how the three conditions as listed above are satisfied as [is?] required." Does the second sentence mean that the three conditions have been met, or does it mean, "is required" (they have not been met)? The sentence seems to be missing a verb, unless I am not reading it correctly. Thanks again for the excellent work! Elizabeth River Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 2 October 7, 2013 Harbour Homes Mr. Jamie Waltier Land Acquisition Manager 1441 N 34th Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 Dear Mr. Waltier: Mark Peterson, Fire Chief/ Emergency Services Administrator Fire & E.mergency Services Department I am withdrawing my letter dated August 15, 2013 regarding the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat. · Please understand that I reserve the right to reissue the letter based on thefinal plat design. Respectfully, Mark Peterson Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator MP/jh c: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Dave Pargas, As.sistant Fire Marshal Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-7000/ Fax (425) 430·7044 • rentonwa.gov - ____ D_e:::'.::~,a_w _____ ............. r City of l 2.~JJ!tIDill September 19, 2013 Mr. Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes 1441 N 34th Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Re: LUA13-000642, Vuecrest Preliminary Plat Dear Mf.Waltier As you are aware, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) did not make a determination regarding the environmental significance of the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat as it has been proposed. Rather, the ERC requested a second geotechnical report in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code requirements in such situations. Based on on-going discussions with you and within the City, it has become necessary to request that you submit this secondary geotechnical review of the project site. As stated in the "hold" letter, dated July 16, 2013, Lots 1, 7, and 8 would not be permitted as planned. The location of the storm water vault and its discharge point at the top of the protected slope would also be denied. The proposed mitigation measure requiring an additional building setback could render other lots unbuildable. These issues require significant plan revisions that may affect the total number of buildable lots. A secondary geotechnical study may result in a revision of the proposed mitigation measures that address the issues stated herein. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 425-430-6581. Sincerely ,13,p~~ ~----- Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development cc: . C.E. "Chip" Vincent Larry Warren Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov August 15, 2013 Harbour Homes Mr. Jamie Waltier Land Acquisition Manager 1441 N 34'" Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 Dear Mr. Waltier: Mark Peterson, Fire Chid / Emergency Services Administrator foe & Emergency Services Department After careful review of the Vuec.rest Preliminary Plat material and the Talbot Ridge and Stone haven plats which adjoin the proposed Vuecrest plat, I have determined that I will not approve any further development of this area without a secondary access road. It is my opinion that any plat where the access is greater than 700 feet (the Vue crest plat has only one way in and one way out) impacts our ability to provide timely emergency response. Citizens will therefore be put at risk if the single access is cut off for any reason and we can riot reach them. In addition, the single access route slo.ws our ability to respond to a secondary event should that become necessary. Quick response times are critical when responding to emergencies. A review of the Talbot Ridge and Stone haven files shows City of Renton Staff and the Hearing Examiner's intent has always been to connect Smithers Avenue South to a secondary access point. · In 2004, the Stonehaven plat material discloses several times where opposition to the long dead end access was addressed by both the Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshal. A letter from the City of Renton dated March 30, 2004 to Mr: Lafe B. Hermansen regarding the Stonehaven Preliminary Plat states, "The intent of providing secondary access beyond 700 feet is to avoid situations where emergency vehicles cannot access a prop.erty due to blockage of the single route." Also, "Further development of the properties west and south of this site will include completion of a looped street system, removing the dead end status for this neighborhood." Finally, .throughout the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat process, the position of the Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department is to oppose long access roads. In summary, any request for a secondary access variance will be denied. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. '~17:V;B Mark Peterson Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator MP/jh c: Chip Vincer1t, CED Administrator Dave Pargask Assistant Fire Marshal Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-7000 / Fax (425) 430-7044. • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor July 16, 2013 Mr. Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE38th Place, Suite 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Re: LUA13-000642, Vuecrest Preliminary Plat Dear ML Joudi The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that there are several issues related to the proposed Vuecrest Preliminary Plat that require additional study. This letter will summarize these issues and provide suggestions for their resolution. Access The proposed project site is located at the end of an approximately 1,770 foot dead-end road, from the intersection of Main Ave Sand SE 1861 h Street to the north property line of the property at the existing cul-de-sac. Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060.H.2) requires dead end streets longer than 700 feet in length to have two means of access and fire sprinklers for all houses beyond 500 feet. As you are aware, the project as proposed has a single access. This issue may be resolved by either providing a second access acceptable to the City or by applying for a Variance from the above-referenced code requirement. Procedures for Variances can be found in RMC 4-9-250. Please contact us if you wish to apply for a Variance. The Variance would be heard at the same public hearing before the Hearing Examiner as the Preliminary Plat application. At the present time, however, the City of Renton Fire Department would not support such a variance. Critical Areas -Regulated Slopes/ Erosion Hazard/ Landslide Hazard The site has been identified as having "protected slopes," which are those between 40 and 90 percent gradient. There are also both "high erosion" and "high landslide" hazard zones on the site. There several issues related to these critical areas that must be resolved prior to project approval. They ;ire: Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Ren!on, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Mr. Maher Joudi July 16, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Maximum Fill Slope Fill operations associated with a subdivision resulting in creation of permanent slopes 40 percent or greater, which are 15 feet in height, i.e. protected slopes, shall not be approved (RMC 4-4-060.N.6). According to the grading plan (sheet 4 of 7), Lot 1 would have a 45 percent fill slope and a height of 18 feet. Lots 7 and 8 would have 50 percent fill slopes and heights of 20 feet. These 3 lots would not be permitted. Geotechnical Engineering Study The Geotechnical Engineering Study (Study) submitted with the application, by Earth Solutions NW (ESNW), dated February 2013, is based on a conceptual site plan that was subsequently altered prior to submittal ofthe application. The number of lots has been increased and the stormwater vault has been relocated closer to the protected slopes. The Study does not address grading, except to mention that the estimated cut and fill slopes were "on the order of two to eight feet on average." Page 5 of the Study states that the sloped areas along the western portion of the margins of the site would be severely susceptible to erosion, but that these areas "will remain large.ly unaltered and vegetated." The plan, however, proposes removal of all vegetation within 20 feet of the top of the protected slope, construction of a 4-foot tall retaining wall, and placement of fill at grades up to 50 percent and heights of 20 feet, coincident with the top of the protected slope. The Study states that residential structures would be set back 20 feet from the top of the slope. It does not address the fact that the 20-foot setback would itself, following placement of fill, be a 50 percent slope. A distinction between activity setback and building setback would be useful. Building Setbacks A building setback line, in addition to the 20-foot setback, would be required based on RMC 4-4-060.L.1, which regulates building setbacks from fill slopes. For slopes 11 to 30.9 feet in height, regardless of grade, buildings shall be setback 7 feet from the top of slope. This would impact the remaining lots on the west side of the proposed Smithers Ave S. The International Building Code also requires building setbacks from fill slopes and may be more restrictive. Slope Setback The 20-foot setback was partially addressed in a subsequently submitted letter, "Slope Setback," dated April 10, 2013, by ESNW. It acknowledged the construction of a rockery adjacent to the top of the protected slope, facing a 2:1 "partial" fill slope above and the relocation of the stormwater vault to 10 feet from the top of the natural slope. The letter referenced RMC 4-3-050.J.2: a. Whenever a proposed development requires a development permit and a geologic hazard is present on the site of the proposed development or on abutting Mr. Maher Joudi July 16, 2013 Page 3 of 3 or adjacent sites within fifty feet (50') of the subject site, geotechnical studies by qualified professionals shall be required. b. The required studies shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: i. The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and ii. The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii. The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The Letter verified that the proposal would meet the first criterion, but did not provide a response to the second and third criteria. Soil Conditions Furthermore, the Letter states that the soil conditions on site consist of "glacial till which becomes dense to very dense near the surface." The Study, however, indicates that test pits 6, 7, and 8, located along the area to be filled at the top of the protected slope, consist of sandy silt and sand. This is a significant inconsistency, given the proposed grading activities. Secondary Review The Environmental Review Committee determined that an independent secondary geotechnical review is required, consistent with RMC 4-3-050.F.7. Information regarding this procedure, including the City of Renton roster of approved geotechnical engineers, will be available upon request. Stormwater Drainage Regarding the drainage plan, the location. of the vault, within 10 feet of the top of the protected slope and the.outlet positioned so as to drain directly downslope to the top of the protected slope line in a "high erosion hazard" zone raised additional concerns. It has been suggested the vault be relocated. As of the date of this letter, the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat is "on hold," pending submittal of the requested information. The hearing date of August 13, 2013, will be rescheduled. I suggest we meet with other plan reviewers when you are prepared to discuss these issues. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 425-430-6581. Sincerely ~~ Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development cc: Parties of Record Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Annie Lee 867 5 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Kolin Taylor, KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Oarshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Nancy Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S #F Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 David Rasmussen, Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOJ\ue Pestl 723 S 47th St 4726 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-6272 Renton, WA 98055-7328 William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 Ltanya Terrell Jones 4769 Morris Ave S Unit 5302 Renton, WA 98055-6374 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 Amanda Perez 1 Borgata Apartments & Townho 2505 23rd Ave #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8355 Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave S #55202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 William & Lynn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 06-11-13: 10:49AM; # ,, -~:::....:.+.L.J,~~o-7otfo ... Denis Law· · _Mayor June 7, 2013 Department of Community arid Economic Development · N,incy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District . 420 Park Avenue N · Renton, WA 98055 · Subject: Vuecrest Estates . LUA13-00064Z,.ECF,'PP . . . C.E. "Chip"Vincent,Administrator The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a 21-lot.sii1gle0family subdivision locate.d at.4800 block of Smithers Avenues S. Please see the .enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application; CE.D needs to kno; ·which Renton -schools would be .attended by children livin,(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, PlanningDivision, 1055 South Grady. Way, Renton, Washington 98057 or fax to (425) 430-7300, by June 21, 2013·. Elementary.School:_· --±c=cc'-"--Jo/'=-'C-'-'i'--""'""'-...C...------'-------"-----' Middle School:·_ ~--P--"'"""":!f"""-"'cc--c_:_ ____ --"_-------'---'--- High School: __ _:_ __ ~'9\c..IL....,'-1,V:,:;:..t~p..,.------:___:_.:_ _____ ~ .• w. ill. t,he 0 Schools you have indicated be able to h' die, the ivact of the additional students '' ·.· . estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes· . . . No . · . . · Any Comments:.~------~~-'----~--------------- Thank you for pr~viding this important information. If you ·have any question~ regarding this project, "please contact me at {425) 430-7314. Sincerely, ~-OJtlf!fl- Variessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure· Renton Oty Hall • 1055 South GradyWay • R~nton, Washington 98057 · : . rentonwa.gov •· :s rr r:+s ,w. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development {CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME; PROJECT DESCRIPTION: June 7, 2013 LUAB-000642, ECF, PP Vuecrest Estates The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 21-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has prospered ta limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees, 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a stromwater report with the application. PROJECT LOCATION: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED {DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS ·M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE; NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: May 21, 2013 June 7, 2013 Maher Joudi, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers; 10604 NE 3gth Place #232; Kirkland, WA 98033; Eml: maher.joudi@drstrong.com Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review DOE, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Building and Construction Permits Critical Areas Report, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Stream/Lake Study, Traffic Impact Statement, and Wetland Assessment 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.: Vuecrest Estates/LUAB-000642, ECF, PP NAME:------------------------------------ MAILING ADDRESS: __________________ City/State/Zip:------------- TELEPHONE NO.: ---------------- Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentiJtively scheduled for August 13, 2013 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF). Residential Medium Density (RMD), and Residential Low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential 1 (R-1), Residential 8 (R- 8), and Residential 14 (R-14) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110, RMC 4-9- 070, RMC 4-7-080, RMC 4-3-110 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. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TraffEx Northwest Traffic Experts, dated April 23, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Wetland Resources Inc., dated Moy 10, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnico/ Engineering Study and Slope Analysis prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC., dated February 25, 2013 and April 10, 2013 respectively. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, CED-P!anning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on June 21, 2013. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on August 13, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may stiil appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner; (425) 430-7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOU PROPER AUTHORIZATION Denis Law Mayor June 7, 2013 Maher Joudi D.R.·Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 33th Place #232 Kirkland, WA 98033 cc--~~---= <,') I ~~' J~ ~ 'J ....... ~~,.)\,,.,...,;;;,, Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Notice of Complete Application Vuecrest Estates, LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Joudi: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on July 1, 2013. 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 August 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. 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 (42S) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: Schneider Homes_l, LLC / Owner{s) Jamie Waltier / Applicant Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor June 7, 2013 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School Djstrict 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Vuecrest Estates LUAB-000642, ECF, PP The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a 21-lot single-family subdivision located at 4800 block of Smithers Avenues S. 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 June 21, 2013. Elementary School: ___________________________ _ Middle School: ----~--~-----------------~-- High School: ______________________________ _ Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No ___ _ Any Comments: _______________________________ _ Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, ~-DJ~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure Renton City Hall , 1055 South GradyWay , Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov PLAN REVIEW COMMEN (LUA 13-0:_0:_06=4=2:) __ ,,,__111117.....,..., r ¢ City of 1 1~ts l t U Il PLAN ADDRESS: APPLICATION DATE: 05/21/2013 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 21-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and ResldentiaJ 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of whlch 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed to limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a stormwater report with the application -----· Engineering Review Rohini Nair Ph: 425-430-7298 email: rnair@rentonwa.gov Correction: Engineering Plan Review Comments Created On: 07/08/2013 Comments: The streets has been named by the City and the information has been provided to the applicant engineer. July 18, 2013 South 48th Place must meet with Fire Department approval regarding culdesac turnaround as per City standard dimensions and/or a secondary access. ( Discussed with Corey after your email and he said that things had changed after his email to you). Provide draft letter/ email from Soos Creek regarding the water service to the Vuecrest site. This project is slightly different from other projects since it currently lies in the Renton Service area, but the City does not have water service mains in the area. The existing water main that ends at the north property line of the development, is served by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The location of the detention facility can be determined after the landslide hazard areas concerns are addressed by the geotech and as per City amendments of KCSWDM. Section I of Core Requirement #3: Flow Control of the City's 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment includes L FACILITY REQUIREMENT IN LANDSLIDE HAZARD DRAINAGE AREAS Proposed projects subject to Discharge Requirement 2 in Core Requirement #1 (seep. 1-20) must provide a tightline system unless the 1 DO-year runoff from the project site can be feasibly infiltrated or one of the other exceptions listed on page 1-20 apply. For infiltration to be used as an alternative to the tightline requirement, it must be feasible per the facility design requirements and limitations specified in Section 5.4. When evaluating the feasibility of infiltration. multiple facility locations scattered throughout the project site shall be considered and used where feasible and practical to avoid concentrating infiltrated water in one location. Jf multiple facilities are not feasible or practical, then a single infiltration facility meeting the minimum setback requirements in Section 5.4 may be used where feasible. Where infiltration is not feasible, it is still possible for a proposed project to qualify for one of the other exceptions to the tightline requirement specified in Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-20). If such a project is subject to the flow control facility requirement in Core Requirement #3, the required facility must be a detention pond sized to meet, at minimum, the Flow Control Duration Standard Matching Forested site conditions flow control facility standard with a safety factor of 20% applied to the storage volume. The detention pond must be sited and designed so as to maximize the opportunity for infiltration in the pond. To accomplish this, all of the following design requirements must be met 1. The detention pond must be preceded by either a water quality treatment facility presettling basin per Section 5.4, AND 2. All detention pond side slopes must be 3H:1V or flatter and must be earthen, AND 3. Detention pond liners that impede infiltration shall not be used, AND 4. The pond bottom shall be at or above the seasonal high groundwater table, AND per Core Requirement #8 or a 5. The detention pond outflow must meet the discharge dispersal requirements specified in Discharge Requirement 1 of Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-19) Independent secondary review is required consistent with RMC 4-3-100J and RMC 4-3-100F7. b. i Geologic Hazards: Independent secondary review shall be conducted in accordance with the following: i. Required -Sensitive and Protected Slopes, and Medium, High, or Very High Landslide Hazards: All geotechnical reports submitted in accordance with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC, Permits -General and Appeals, shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. An applicant may request that independent review be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority -Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Shorelines, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands subsection F7 of this Section. 0 0 The Flow control application in the TlR should refer the site as in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) Label the site access shown in the conceptual road and grading plan as (as private or public), showing the ROW width/ easement width. paved widths Page 1 of 1 PLAN REVIEW COMMEN 'LUA 13 000642) • ·r··· JS City of ' -=-=------...,.. { /2·•·r· ·1·•r'/·r-C .. c·r ··1 J:. :. ~ --..,; -:;;)...; - PLAN ADDRESS: APPLICATION DATE: 05/21/2013 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 21-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1 ), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has prospered to limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a stromwater report with the application. Community Services Review Leslie Betlach Ph: 425-430-6619 email: LBetlach@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: All of the R.0.W. is being proposed to be dedicated to the City, including landscaping and irrigation requiring forestry maintenance and irrigation maintenance, which is currently unfunded. Community Services does not support accepting sensitive area tracts, for other parcels as this is not supported by any adopted plan. Street trees along Smithers Ave S should be trees that mature at a large size. Do not use Callery Pear per plan. Street trees along SE 186th Pl should be different species from trees along Smithers & be large-maturing. Each lot should receive 1 tree except comer lots should contain 2 street trees. All street tree spacing shall be 50 feet on-center. Fire Review -Construction Corey Thomas Ph: 425-430-7024 email: cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150-feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. 3. The Renton Fire and Emergency Services Department does not support any variance request waiving the required secondary access due to the extreme length (approximate maximum length of 2,500 feet)of the proposed dead end street, the heavily forested areas surrounding the proposed development and the increased risk of lengthly response times due to traffic and congestion on the existing dead end street already serving approximately 100 single family lots. Technical Services Bob MacOnie Ph: 425-430-7369 email: bmaconie@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: There is a substantial and long standing encroachment over the southwesterly portion of proposed Tract 'C'. This issue needs to be remedied prior to final plat approval. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA 13-000642 and LND-10-0501, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network.. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to detem,ine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. June 25, 2013 Page 1 of 2 Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or ts to be, 5t:t at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utllities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGENDn block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be detennined at the time that building pennits are issued Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Remove references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that jf there are restrictive covenants. agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s} are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. Please provide a label. e.g. Tract 'G' for the balance of the parcel being subdivided. Provide appropriate conveying language for the Tracts created. For those belong to the HOA: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract(s whatever) is/are hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners' Association (HOA). In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot In this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract(s) previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financ!al and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract(s whatever). The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract seiving the plat or reference to a separate recording instrument detailing the same. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner(s). Police Review Recommendations: 20 estimated CFS annually Minimal impact June 25, 2013 Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-7521 email: cparks@rentonwa.gov Page 2 of 2 City of _____ ton Department of Community & Economic elopment REVIEW GREEN FOLDER NOTIFICATION OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 21, 2013 APPLICATION NO: LUAB-000642, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 7, 2013 APPLICANT: Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Vuecrest Estates PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair SITE AREA: 405,395 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 2,400 SF per lot SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 21-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has prospered to limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. 5. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a stromwater report with the application. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Element of the Environment Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Please enter your comments directly in Energov. Where to enter your comments: Manage My Reviews ar eReview Which type of comments are entered: Element of the Environment Housina Aesthetics Liaht/Glare Recreation Utilities Transoortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000Feet Recommendation: Comments that impact the project including any of the Environemental Impacts above. Correction: Corrections to the project that need to made before the review can be completed and/or requesting submittal of additional documentation and/or resubmittal af existing documentation. What Status should be used: Reviewed -I have reviewed the project and have no comments. Reviewed with comments -I have reviewed the project and I have comments entered in Recommendations. Correction/Resubmit-I hove reviewed the project and the applicant needs to submit and/or resubmit documentation and I have added corrections in Corrections. City of ..... ton Department of Community & Economic-· ,efopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 21, 2013 APPLICATION NO: LUAB-000642, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 7, 2013 APPLICANT: Jamie Wal tier, Harbour Homes PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Vuecrest Estates PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair SITE AREA: 405,395 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 2,400 SF per lot SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 21-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. 5, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has prospered to limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a stromwater report with the application. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Min()r Major Information Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major lnformatir;m Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HousinQ Air Aesthetics Water Uaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnnrtation Environmentaf Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addWonal information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date June 7, 2013 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Vuecrest Estates LUAB-000642, ECF, PP The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a 21-lot single-family subdivision located at 4800 block of Smithers Avenues 5. 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 June 21, 2013. Elementary School: ---------------------------- Mid d I e School: ------------------------------ High School: ------------------------------ Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No __ _ Any Comments: _____________________________ _ Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, ~-DJ~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure June 7, 2013 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38'h Place #232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Subject: Notice of Complete Application Vuecrest Estates, LUA13-000642, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Joudi: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on July 1, 2013. 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 August 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. 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) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: Schneider Homes I, LLC / Owner(s) Jamie Waltier / Applicant RECEIPT EG00008803 BILLING CONTACT Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34TH ST, 200 SEATTLE, WA 98103 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME , ... >mm_,_,, --·--"---·---·" ~""-~' --- LUA 13-000642 PLAN -Preliminary Plat Fee Technology Fee LUA 13-000642 PLAN -Environmental Review PLAN -Preliminary Plat Fee Printed On: 5/21/2013 Prepared By: Vanessa Dolbee TRANSACTION TYPE . .. ·~-" Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment r Transaction Date: May 21, 2013 t~nton ,, ... s,.io,-,1 MA,· ,. 1 ! -i.Ui.; PAYMENT METHOD :heck #658 8heck #658 SUB TOTAL :heck #657 Check #657 SUB TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ..... $3.970.00 S150 00 $4,120.00 $1,000.00 $30.00 $1,030.00 $5,150.00 Page 1 of 1 Geonerco Properties, LLC June 24, 2014 If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW, LLC ES-2660.01 Page2 .} \. June 24, 2014 ES-2660.01 Geonerco Pro~erties, LLC 1441 North 34 Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Proposed Stormwater Vault Vuecrest Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers Vuecrest Estates Vault Detail Sheet Dated June 19, 2014 Dear Jamie: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to provide an assessment regarding the weight of the proposed stormwater vault and its effect on the adjacent slope. Based on information provided by the project structural engineer (Mr. Dan Kosnik, P.E.), the vault, when full and including 18 inches of soil cover will weigh 1,500 pounds per square foot. With a footprint of 5,900 square feet, the maximum weight of the vault will be 4,425 tons. Based on information provided by the project civil engineer (Mr. Maher Joudi, P.E.), the volume of soil displaced by the vault will be 3,676 cubic yards or 99,250 cubic feet. Using an in-situ soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot, the weight of soil displaced by the vault will be 5,955 tons. Therefore, even when the vault is full of water, it is 1,530 tons lighter than the soil it replaced. As currently designed, the setback from the top of the steep slope to the edge of the vault is 40 to 58 feet from the top of the steep slope. Given the setback from the slope and the fact that the vault will weigh 1,530 tons less than the soil it replaces, the vault will increase the overall stability of the slope RECEI\/ED EXHIBIT 29 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 44 ,124 ..::u!GV I V-- 7h/lC/ M TIJEN HD® Heavy Duty Sere iv Anchor for Coocrete and P.1asonry Tension Loads in Normal-Weight Concrete See Notes Below 1. Toe allowable loads !lsted are based on a safety factor of 4.0. 2. Allowable loads may be Increased 33Y.1% for shorMerm loading due to wind or seismic forces where permitted by code, 3. R11ferto allowable load-adjustment factors for spacing and edge distance on pages 128-129. '*See page 10 tor an explanation of the load table icons 4. The minimum concrete thickness Is 1 ~ times the embedment depth. 5. Tension and Shear loads for the Tlten HD anchor may be combined using the el!iptl::al Interaction equation (ll--%). Allowable load may be Interpolated for concrete compressive strengths between 2000 psi and 4000 psL .-- STEEL BAB".GBAT.J.NG. LO~D TABLE 11-2 I 7-4 I 1-2 4.8 I 4.9 I s.7 I 6.4 I 7.2 I 9.7 I 10.7 6.4 I 6.9 I 7.7 I 9.2 I 10.0 I 14.5 I 16.o 5.9 · 1 6.2 I 7.1 I 8.2 I 9.o 112.9 I 14.2 8.4 I 9.2 I 10.2 I 12.11 13.1 I 19.4 I 21.3 Ml~IL8l~l~IU~I=~~~- 10.0 I 11.2 I 12.2 I 14.9 I 15.9 I 23.8 I 25.7f1s,:---- 8.4 I 9.2 I 10.2 I 12.1 / 13.1 / 18.8 / 20.0 12.5 I 13.7 I 1s.1 I 1s.11 19.6 / 28.l I 30.1 14.I I 15.7 / 17.1 I 20.9 I 22.3 / 32.5 / 34.4 15.7 I 17.8 / 19.2 I 23.7 I 25.1 I 36.9 I 38.8 17.4 I 19.8 I 21.2 I 26.5 I 27.9 I 41.3 I 43.2 21.8 I 23.3 I 29.2 I 30.7 / 45.6 / 47.S NOTE: WHEN GnATINOS WITH SERRATED BEARING ~SARE SELECrEIJ, THE DEP'f!I D~ GRATINQ REQUIRED '!71.fERVlCE A S~ECJ_FIED LOAD W/U Bi; 1/4• GREATER THAN THAT SHDWN ~~-!!fE. TABLE$ ABOVE. For deflectlon of not more. than 1/4' when subfected to the severest of the following: (1) the unffoIIII. loads elow; f?\ under concentrated m 1--an loads of 300 lbs. up to 61-0" span; or (3) 400 lhs. for spans 5•--0• and over. ~r~i~ SAFE UNIFORM LOAD 2'-6n 3'-0" 3'-6n 4'·0" 4'..fl" 5 1-on 5'--6" 6'-0" 6 1-6 11 7'-0" 8'-0a 9'-0" )!.l /-1'11 LBS.ISO, FT. ,.. l..c:. --1 60 tx 1/8 1xl/8 1 X 1/8 1 X 1/8 1 X 3/16 1-1/4 X 1/8 1-1/4 x3/16 1-1/2 X 3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 1-3/_4 X 3/16 2x 3/16 2,.1/4 X 3/16 m , ...C:. 78 lxl/8 . lxl/8 1 X 1/8 1 x 1/B 1 X 3/16 1-1/4 X 1/8 1-1/4 X 3/16 lMl/2 x 3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 2 X 3/16 Z-l/4x3/16 ~ 2. 100 1 X 1/8 1 X 1/8 lxl/8 1 x: 1/8 1 X 3/16 1-1/4 X 1/8 1-1/4 X 3/16 1-1/Zx 3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 1-3/4x 3/16 2-1/4 X 3/16 2-1/2x 3/16 126 1 X 1/8 1 X 1/8 1 X 1/8 1 X 1/8 1-1/4 X 1/8 1-114 X .iJl6 l•lj",l, X ./,,fO 1-1/2 X 3/16 l-3/4 X 3110 2X3!l6 2-1/4 X 3/16 -Lil i 1....J 160 1 X 1/8 1 X t/8 1 X 1/8 1 X 3/16 1-1/4 X 1/8 1-1/4 X 3/16 1•1/2 X 3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 2 X 3/16 2-1/2 X 3/16 I -I 200 lx 1/8 1 X 1/8 lxl/8 1-1/4 X 1/8 1-1/4 X 3/16 1-1/Zx 3/16 1-3/4'3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 2x 3/16 2-1/4 X 3/16 -- 3DIJ Hl/8. 1x3/16. 1 X 3/16 1-1/4 X 3/16 1-1/2 X 3/16 1-3/4 X 3/16 2x3/16 Zx3/16 2-1/4 X 3/16 2-l/2x 3/16 --I ---- ,tl!!e PrcJect VtJcCJL[:;":,,T 1:-sTAT ES Sheet ._tructures . Dale A DMs1on of Kosnlk Englneerlng PC Job No .·-·: ·: ,.i ... ;. :···~···; ;··-~-:· ... ·:· .. -~·· :·: ··:··:. :·._: .. ·:· ·.· ·:···· ·: ': .. : . .-···; :···:···; :'. :···: , !· ·'· PM~iliJ : ~~t1~e:) :; ·:.:r_r_ .:.:,: ~<:•::.:1 __ :::;;: ;:J :f: ! :: :··:: 1 .. '.·:i::, r~r-.;·.J;PLN~::: :iiJd't?f:: ::_·;:!>I:; j~~J JrH r·fT::.· i < _i( ;•. ·. ' ; •.••.. ~~,;,;~ f~tPtNif ~:L••···tT: ,·{-.. :.····: ·.·. ,.·.·. , .· -: · JVq:x: .1Ji,; ;~/'tfr ~t~ ., 11~1 · ~Tl(Y;i, · ··•····. : : .. : ! . i : . • : . , ·T_, :w;)4w:#X }Uv \ ~l~v;jt: .A# ;9?4:fJ l.: : .. :: ; .::!:>r:.) f 1 .. : -: .. -·. :_ ~ -.'..: .. ! : -. _: __ ~.:.: ·. -: -: ... : :-~---~ · __ ;_ ~--·-.\ ... . . . ; -~-. . . . : . . . -. : ~ . · .• ": . . .. : . 7 .. j .: . '. .. ~ . : '· . :CP/rfA?ll'j,) -~-:. · _: M~1ppizµ\ :·,:~; i1v'.f.if: t .•. l : ; ' .: .•• : _;· '.. f~r'; ?f~ ; :· '. : >!r~r~11~~'.~if?& t~--'.; ·:i: :. :; :·; . ..I .. _: .. 1 .. _· ·--~ ·,. .... ( ..... .-.. : -·· .. \. ~ : --~--; ... ~.) ~. ;.). ~-~-.. -~ ··,.: -~ . ~-) .. :. ~-), : ·'···'. • . ·:· . ~ ... •· .,. ' . : ·:-·: .· .. ' --~ ··•· . • • · .... i . :· ·' .· : ! I : : • • ; : : ' -t; • > ... ··• • .• F/ ; : / ; : [ i , i i 1~q1; J'frw, 7~~/JW+·• SITE STRUCTURES 1051119th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 Beam Design Below Grated Opening Design Data Height of Curb: Curb Thickness: Soil Density: Beam Width: Beam Span: Truck Rear Axle Load: Calculated Design Forces Soil Weight= Curb Weight= Self Weight = .104 plf 250 plf 156 pit Max Beam Reaction f!2)QQQ.lb Load Factor: ~~ !l{lillf Wu= 61[} pit Pu = . 36800 lb Design for Flexure =~i;~~~z: Bot Rein! (i?i;~;, Area of Steel 1,33 sq-in Depth to Reint (d) · 28.1.3 in Comp Block (a) · g.~p in d -a12 . 26.83 in <l>Mn = 1!!~987 ft-lbs Design for Shear Tie Reint Size Area of Steel Depth to Reinf (d) Max Spacing Reint Spacing <l>Vc = 0.2Q 19,so 5,25 in .;:;;'c!;{(,lf in !!116!i lbs <l>Vs = . 42057 lbs <t>Vc +<t>Vs = . 47923 lbs = )0 sheet: date: prJ. no. 7/7//tj ~-/Y ·OL/S 1'-0 11 OR 2'-0 11 l#S ('.?!~??a \'1 ii W /Pb JM (1)#~014 11 w1~E; 12111'\ Mu= · ·· .i; .102270 ft-lbs rc,.c•_ ·c· ,. ' ' Ao 17 w~v1., 1Ht1A-r-?fr'Ptw1 r-r , &)1 w 111 ~ )< ( 'lJ'tJ t 1i) ,c. 11-'' o e:e-r J :: tftl ' 1' V .c -;, e,, 1 > (a-) . o r;o ( b) 1/? '°" ,i{;,c?v /b~ .If V ~ .,.. t?, 1 c;(o,71 Jt.,o {4:frz) = 4 t,,~t?d \,!S- 1P I 9t'O I~,. Vu= . ~1331 lbs SITE STRUCTURES 1051119th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 Project Reinforcing at Top of Wall Below Grated Opening Design Data Vuecrest Estates sheet: date: prJ. no. /(/) S-14-045 ----- Top of Footing to Inside Top of Vault (H1) Top of Footing to Finished Grade (H2) Soil Pressure EFW Controlling Lateral Surcharge Grating Span tG.2o ft 18/75:ft , .{55 pcf \7P-pst /jp:ft curb height curb horz rein! bar curb horz rein! spacing depth to center of rein! curb thickness ft , ,. ,., ·-in o/c in in SURCHARGE SOIL PRESSURE A __ j ---~ -~~j Calculated Design Forces Fbot Of curb = FbotofwaD = Mwall uniform = Mwan triangle = Load Factor Wu=· 152.& plf 110t25"plf 22689 ft-lbs 39334_ ft-lbs ····,, tir -. ,-·-· 6107 Wall Reinforcing Wall Thickness Clear Cover Vert Rebar Size· Rebar Area cone strength fc .. Closure Rein! As in Closure ll>Mn =. '.:ii ;n <] .-.-_·.·.•_ i -.·,] .. ""_'_,_·_i.· it Mu horz curt = <.pMncurb:::. · · 1 .. 906 ft-lbs 3726. ft-lbs Mbase of wall= R= 62023 ft-lbs · 3817 plf Mu horzwan = . • 76337 ft-lbs in in 0.79 sq-in 400() psi (3)-#e·· 1.33 sq-in · 104203 ft-lbs Addi Horz Rein! # of Addi Bars·· As@Top of Wall. depth to rein! ( d) comp block (a) d -a/2 Mu= Ws1 = 1031.25 Ws2 = 70 curb self-supported ,:if .\·4 1.?i sq-in · 8.63 in 2.27 in . 7A9 in 76337 ft-lbs SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates 15 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 sheet date pfJ. no. S-14-045 Design Data : Wall Foundation Design Allowable Bearing Pressure /k'.' {effid(! psf Rebar strength fy = --· -_; /Cc 60 ksi Concrete strength = ••• jt@g psi Soil Desity Soil Cover over the lid 125 pct 1.5 ft Perimeter Wall-Footing Design Design live load Soil Cover dead load Plank dead load Wall dead load total dead load Total live+ dead Load_ Required Fig Width Selected Fig Width /172tplf 2344 plf 1125 plf 2437.5 plf 5906 plf L.F 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 Per. wall Cell Width lnl wall Cell Width left lnl wall Cell Width right Plank weight Wall Height Wall Thickness Wu 2760 plf 2812.5 plf 1350 plf 2925 plf 7087.5 plf 9848 plf Qu= As regd = 4226 psf 0.02 sq-inlft 0.43 sq-in/ft 0.03 sq-in/ft Mu = 935 ft-lbs at face of wall at face of wall at face of wall Asmin = 1.33xAsregd= Vu= 2811 plf phi Vn= 11732 plf Interior Wall Footing Design Design live load Soil Cover dead load Plank dead load Wall dead load total dead load ' '}'J; ~wiJ,g plf 4313 plf 2070 plf 2437.5 plf 8820 plf L.F 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 12270 plf A 'Y.I"~ Wu 5520 plf 5175 plf 2484 plf 2925 plf 10584 plf 16104 plf Total live + dead Load Required Ftg Width Selected Ftg Width 3.07 ft ~-'-~ -;i:'.: i--;3,5 ft Selected Fig Thickness ' . -······ -~--- Qu= As regd = Asmin = 1.33 xAs regd = 4601 psf 0.08 sq-inlft 0 .43 sq-in/ft 0.10 sq-in/ft Mu= Vu= phi Vn= 3595 ft-lbs 5751 plf 11732 plf at face of wall at face of wall at face of wall 23 ft 23 ft 23 ft 90 psf 16.25 ft 12 inches SITE STRUCTURES ProJ.,Ct Vuecrest Estates et date prj. no. 1051119thAve SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 Design Data : Wall Foundation Loads Analysis Soil Desity Soil Cover over the lid Plank weight Uniform Live Load Truck Rating Wall Height -,,125 pcf 'Tsft 9_0 psf 150 sf . --.--.-·-·-··· p --.C.HS20A<t_ 16.25 ft Per. wall Cell Width Int. wall Cell Width left Int. wall Cell Width right Front Axle Load Rear Axle #1 Load Rear Axle #2 Load Total vehicle wt -·\atioti lbs _ s3?QQ() lbs : C;320PO lbs 72000 lbs Truck Wheel Load Distribution to Perimeter Wall Foundation S-14-045 _ 23 ft 23 ft 23 ft Truck Perpendicular to the perimeter wall wl rear axle #2 directly over wall & distance to axle #1 = 14ft total truck load to wall = 44522_ lbs distribution width= 43.5 ft Load@ base of wall= 1023 plf Truck Parallel to the perimeter wall wl one wheel over wall & 2nd wheel on plank (incl axle 1 &2 onlv I total truck load to wall = 55652 lbs calc distribution width= 51.5 ft Load@ base of wall= 1081 plf Truck Wheel Load Distribution to Interior Wall Foundation Truck Perpendicular to the int. wall wl rear axle #2&#1 centered over the wall & dist between axles = 14ft total truck load to wall = 44522 lbs distribution width = 43.ti ft Load @ base of wall = 1023 plf Truck Perpendicular to the interior wall wl rear axle #2 directly over wall & distance to axle #1 = 14ft total truck load to wall = 44ti22 lbs left plank Load@ base of wall= 1023 ·plf total truck load to wall = 44ti22 lbs right plank Load@ base of wall= · ·1023 plf distribution width = 43;5 ft Truck Parallel to the interior wall wl one wheel over wall & 2nd wheel on plank (incl axle 1 &2 only) total truck load to wall= · q5652 lbs left plank Load @base of wall= 1081 plf total truck load to wall = 55652 lbs right plank Load @ base of wall= 1081 plf distribution width = · 51.5 ft Truck Parallel to the interior wall wl the truck centered over the wall (incl axle 1 &2 only ) total truck load to wall = 55652 lbs distribution width = 51,5 ft Load @ base of wall = 1081 plf Uniform Live Load distribution to Wall Footings Perimeter Wall Interior Wall _ 1725 plf 3450 plf · ... Project . _ Sheet . .,.tructures \Ju&C..\2-!;C':>T E,•.,"Tl"rTE"c:. Date a A DMelon of Koenlk Engineering PC Job No --flk $ . IJM ~ v1 F t?~_&~··• . . · . . · V~e-f-v t&o :::-. / '.t, (} 1' /i i?l-t-t,;L r9 ~(/ ~ 1 i 0 11-::o M ~ • f~~ ~ ~ f?'f A~ · £11~ :e l~a 1r • . . IJre:, ~ i2711 r'r f A-!? /+-:o-'W-t/7 i 11t?,,, -:: l~.v'I i c.. f'L" "' I I£? 1-'-r-1 --I I ei./ . ,,;;1 1 Jf'frf [' k I '/ ) · r l'f'~ . · /_,¢(r--1, ·· . A~· i, ~(1, 1 l 1 Lz{ = it"·V, •. i . !2 11 ~ J-4 0 ~ b 11 . • ;%;~ .• 11(/:\.:c-C/,?4+;; LW~ 1'4 11 ~ n-b f . · · vt(o) · · ! , : : :r~1t} G til, l,&'#l''.IUWf A-:z._. t1;~1.-¢,1, SITE STRUCTURES 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 PrvJect Vuecrest Estates INTERIOR WALL HEADER DESIGN Header Data sheet ) () date 7/ 7 / Jt./ prj. no. S-14~045 Header width Header span Header depth ln/d ratio · .. '8 inches Concrete Strength · · · :4600 psi ·· Jo.oo tt · ~i inches 2.00 d = 60.00 inches Deep Beam limit ln/d < 5.0 Min shear steel ( Area / spacing ) ratio Max spacing of shear steel 0.012 Min horiz steel ( Area / spacing ) ratio Max spacing of horzontal steel Review shear capacity of header Reinforcing yield strength Shear reinforcing area spacing · 60.ksi d,3J sq in ··· 12' in 12.6 inches 0.02 21 inches Horz reinf area Horz reinf spacing Min Rebar spacing #3@ 9.17 #4@ 16.67 #4@ #5@ 10.00 15.50 · ·: :Q:3)::sq in hf 12. in Reinf shear capacity ¢Vs Total Shear Capacity Max ¢Vn @ ln/d < 2 83 k 135 k 206 k 21784 k Cone shear capacity ¢Ve 52 k Max ¢Vn @ 2 < ln/d < 5 Review flexural capacity of header min As based on 200 bwd/fy min As based on eq 10-3 As reqd based on bending model As reqd based on tie -strut model 1.6 sq inches 1.52 sq inches Factored shear Vu 1.30 sq inches assume Vu is focused @ the center of the header · then Tu= As reqd = 95.14 k 1 .. 76 sq inches 95 k ( SITE STRUCTURES 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 Project Vuecrest Estates INTERIOR WALL HEADER GEOMETRY AND LOADS ANALYSIS Header Overburden & Uniform Loads Lid weight Soil Desity Soil Cover depth over lid Plank design clear span left Plank design clear span right Design Uniform Live Load Lid tributary width to header Uniform service load to header Uniform factored load to header Truck Wheel Loads to Header Truck type Axle Load Wheel Spacing Cover depth <J2$;psf jz~)pcf :t.§. ft .23 ft • i<}23ft \ }§Opsf 23 ft 10638 plf 14145 plf Axle assumed centered over & perpendicular to header sheet /[ date 7/JU'{ prj. no. S-14-045 Load Factors LL y 1.6' DL i,-· t2' distribution width distribution length 3.50 ft 10.00 ft opening width )ljij:pp: ft uniform load @ top of plank wheel load to header from left span wheel load to header from right span Total wheel load to header Factored wheel load to header Design Loads & Forces in Header Service Factored 914 psf 4075 plf 4075 plf 8149 plf 13039 plf 18.8 kif . 27_.2 kif length ea side of hdr 5.00 ft Critical section for shear is at Design Vu= Design Mu= 1.5 feet from the face of the support 95 k 340 k-ft SITE STRUCTURES 1051119th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 Project Vuecrest Estates sheet /0 date 7 /7 /Ii[ pl]. no. S-14-045 Design Data Soil Density Soil Cover depth to the top of the wall Wall height !f?5 pcf .... 2.5 ft )q,25ft p5 pct Ws1 = 137.5 psf Ws2 = 893.75 psi Soil Pressure EFW Surcharge Information uniform truck S1 = , ._ ,.15Q psf (on surface of ground) Equiv Ws = Ws = ·. • '.·. :76 psf ( on surface of wall -see design chart) Critical Design Surcharge pressure = ' 0 psi (on the surface of the wall) Calculated Design Forces 66 psi W1= 137.5 W2= 893.75 F1 = 2234.375 lbs F2= 7261.719 lbs R top= R bot= 3538 lbs 5958 lbs M1 = 4539 M2 = 15140 M total= 19678 ft-lbs Wall Reinforcing Wall thickness Clear cover Rebar size Rebar area Bar spacing Rebar strength fy Cone strength fc Load Factor · i '.1_?• inches . 2 inches ':/'8 0.79 sq-in <JD inches ) 6lJ. ksi · · 40Qff psi ,·1.2· Comp block (a) = Depth to CL bar (d) = d-a/2 = ¢>Mn= Mu= 1.39 inches 9.50 inches 8.81 inches 37351 ft-lbs 23614 ft-lbs max tension reinforcing spacing: t. = 28450 psi s= 16.1 in Anchorage at Top of the Wall Ru= 4245 plf Shear capacity of Dowel = Bearing capacity of Dowel = 11376 plf 5670 plf Anchorage at Bottom of the Wall Ru= 7150 plf Nominal Shear friction capacity of the footing to wall Dowel 11383 plf s= 16.9in Smax = 16.1 in -OK Rebar Dowel Size= ''.'},};'~ Dowel Area = ,· > ·; ·o.79 sq-in Dowel strength fy= 'c: . •,=,:} 60 ksi Dowel Spacing = i · jo: inches Dowel brg length = \\: ·;2:25 inches cone strength fc = C:' ,, $Ql)Q. psi Rebar Dowel Size = • Dowel Area = • Dowel strength fy= · Dowel Spacing = Coefficient of friction = ·di _6}f sq-in • '"60 ksi -10 inches ,, --•'0.6; smooth surface SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet 9 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 date 7/7/,t../ prj. no. S-14-045 · Design Data Soil Density Soil Cover depth to the top of the wall Wall height \"1j)J;pcf ; 2:~:ft ;:/? 1$.25' ft -•-~-)\$ti pct Ws1 = Ws2= 137.5 psf 893.75 psf Soil Pressure EFW Surcharge Information uniform truck S 1 = ]50 psf (on surface of ground) Equiv Ws = Ws = •\ -·• ' :',7p. psf ( on surface of wall -see design chart ) Critical Design Surcharge pressure Calculated Design Forces 'iO. psf (on the surface of the wall) 66 psf W1=207.5 W2= 893.75 F1 = 3371.875 lbs F2 = 7261.719 lbs R top= R bot= 4107 lbs 6527 lbs M1 = 6849 M2 = 15140 M total= 21989 ft-lbs Wall Reinforcing Wall thickness Clear cover Rebarsize Rebar area Bar spacing Rebar strength fy Cone strength fc Load Factor --C _; ''1,?' inches 2 inches _£;"';··,j3 . .. o'7ij sq-in T,:,.{1Q inches }/\i5j} ksi {{~CJQ() psi ,-(,._···1:g· Comp block (a) = Depth to CL bar (d) = d-a/2 = <!>Mn = Mu= 1.39 inches 9.50 inches 8.81 inches ·37351-ft-lbs · 26387 ft-lbs max tension reinforcing spacing: f, = · 31790 psi s= 13.9 in Anchorage at Top of the Wall Ru= 4928 plf Shear capacity of Dowel = Bearing capacity of Dowel = -11376 plf 5670 plf Anchorage at Bottom of the Wall Ru= 7833 plf Nominal Shear friction capacity of the footing to wall Dowel 11383 plf s= 15.1in Smax = 13.9 in -OK Rebar Dowel Size= f L' · \': '':8 Dowel Area= '{t'\q:.y~ sq-in Dowel strength fy= iC : ;y 'so' ksi Dowel Spacing = \ \.; J 2g inches Dowel brg length = · >'_·( 2;2J5 inches cone strength fc = · ?i3Ql:)Q psi Rebar Dowel Size= ·-::,>iX"'.,1:"5' Dowi~::~::t: rJtt}:f l~. ~~t Dowel Spacing = . /f ih:Jtf inches Coefficient of friction= ,\):'::'o:6. smooth surface ( SITE STRUCTURES 1051119th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 .L'roject Vuecrest Estates Vault Walls -Lateral Pressures Review Minimum soil cover depth to top of wall: Maximum soil cover depth to top of wall: Wall Height: At-Rest soil pressure: Active soil pressure: Uniform Addition to At-Rest soil pressure: Soil Density: Load Combinations: L~ L (soil pressure) + ·,1), L (soil pressure)+ Due to HS20 Truck Loading: 1.5 ft min cover over lid: 1.5 ft max cover over lid: Total Factored Lateral Force: 1.5 ft min cover over lid: 1. 5 ft max cover over lid: Due to Uniform Surcharge Load: Uniform surcharge: Equivalent lateral force: Total Factored Lateral Force: 1.5 ft max cover over lid: Due to Seismic Activity: Uniform seismic addition: E = Seismic lateral force: Total Facto red Lateral Force: 1.5 ft max cover over lid: Combined Load Factor: <'2.5 ft ic 2;5 ft 1625 ft ' 55pcf EFD . 35pcf EFD Qpsf < 12!5 pcf L (surcharge/wheel load) L (seismic) 70 psf Uniform · 'ld psf Uniform . 17014 plf ---17014 plf .· ·· "150 sf . p 66 psf Uniform 1(:)910 plf ~OH 163. psf Uniform 12309 plf 1.47 et: date: prJ. no. 8 S-14-045 7-7-/1-/ S, • I'-/ -o<f S CONCRE1 t TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION fiiil ---=-:::::;...:....:~-=-=.:...:.:...:.=.=-=-:....:::::~=..:....,..:...:.=..:.....:..__,y, 121h" HOLLOW CORE SLAB l!:=I -0 ~ :, u. {.) 0.. 0 N .... II .J 0 ]!; i=' u. -0::: ~ 0 {.) HS20-44 12,---,--,l--.--,-~...,..i----,----.--.-.,....I ---.--,---,---,_,, -,--...,---,.........,1--.--,-1 ~~~ ·\\ -4)' i I 11 ~ '·.' -I . I ----T ,· -l 10 ~ ~~ .. I I ... ... 1-· j ' .. ,, ,. . -·. -. ' -I ·---- 9 1 ~ ~: .~! ~ I I I I ---!--·-+--·--+-----+-+-1-+-+1---l-_--l_ 8 L-.. , ., ~-·-~'---~=.Number of Filled Voids required , ..... _ ., .....•. ,--\. i~ for 2'-0" at each end of each slab . r2' , ··--~ --- 1 · \-.1\. ~~l i _ I I I I 1 ii .. . .. , I [ \ ·.~ ! / 1 Vent Notch' ! . ' "1 2 I . •' - 1 1 . . '' . -'--~ ! 1, -, I 0 I I I • • 14 16 18 I ~ I I I • I I 20 2~ 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 GENERAL NOTES: r/J'J~SIMPLE SPAN (ft) 1.) A minimum cover depth of six inches OR a three, inch thick cast in place concrete topping slab is required. 2.) Simple Span is centerline of bearing to centerline of bearing. 3.) The Knee Wall envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil cover that can be supported by slabs with standard riotches for manhole openings, assuming void fill concrete fc = 3,000 psi. Points falling outside this envelope require knee walls to support the slabs at manhole openings. 4.) Interpolation between strand contours is acceptable. DO NOT extrapolate beyond the bounds of this chart 5.) Soil cover is assumed to be uniform. 6.) Except as noted, soil cover unit weight is assumed to be 120 pcf. 7,) Minimum span length= 14'-0". 8.) The values shown on this chart are in compliance with !BC 2003 & AC\ 318--05. 9.) The Vent Notch envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil cover that can be supported by slabs with 61/z" standard notches in adjacent slabs to accommodate 12" diameter vents, assuming void fill concrete fc = 3,000 psi. Refer to Detail 3 on page 15 of this brochure for vent notch details. i 2/18/08 MANUFACTURERS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE• TACOMA, WASHINGTON 7 ___ C=O-=-=-N=C=R=E:..:...TE=--=-=TE=C=H..,_,,N~O=LO=-=G....:.Y.....aC::::...O~R'--PO=-a..o~~Tl-=O ...... N"'---·---Z1Q$::- 12112" HOLLOW CORE SLAB -d z ::> u. u Q. 0 N ..... II 150 PSF 12 ~~I ~l~I ~I ~l~l~I ~. ~,~~, -1~~1 ~~~~, ~~I~~~ , Vent Notch9 11 ·~\ ~ ~ i i I ------------·r - 10 \~-~ -., . r-!!~ ~~:~~~r:LH;e~Joidsrequ;;:d -.. i __ ----.-11··-.·.··11.-111··· ~_-~ ,_., · '"'S I for 2'-0" at each end of each slab. __ : ::,\~~) 1111 j .ii ___ /__ 1,-~-·"'1···----·-. ,1 -- K ~-. ·\ i -11 Strands I 1 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 +--+---+-'--+--+--+-+-+--+1-+.-.--+--+-+-+---+--+.-+-----l.-+--+---+---,i--+-----l 14 16 18 20 22 / 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 GENERAL NOTES: ry+/!I~ SIMPLE SPAN (ft} 1.) A minimum cover depth of six inches OR a three inch thick cast in place concrete topping slab is required. 2.) Simple Span is centerline of bearing to centerline of bearing. 3.) The' Knee Wall envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil col/er that earl be supported by slabs with standard notches for manhole openings, assuming void fill concrete fc = 3,000 psi. Points falling outside this envelope require knee walls to support the slabs at manhole openings. 4.) Interpolation between strand contours is acceptable. DO NOT extrapolate beyond the bounds of this chart. 5.) Soil cover is assumed to be uniform. 6.) Except as noted, soil cover unit weight is assumed to be 120 pcf. 7.) Minimum span length= 14'-0", 8.) The values shown on this chart are in compliance with \BC 2003 & ACI 318-05. 9.) The Vent Notch envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil cover that can be supported by slabs with 6W' standard notches in adjacent slabs to accommodate 12" diameter vents, assuming void fill concrete fc = 3,000 psi. Refer to Detail 3 on page 15 of this brochure for vent notch details. 2/18108 MANUFACTURERS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE• TACOMA, WASHINGTON 9 U--C_O_NC_ET_E_TE_C_H_NO_~_OG_~_C_J_RPO_RA_JlO_N_-5:;c1_"2-='~=1:J"=-5 121/2 11 HOLLOW CORE SLAB DIMENSIONS FOR DETAILING 6" 3'-101/2'' 11 "2' 111/2" 6" SPAN-LOAD TABLE ALLOWABLE SUPERIMPOSED LOAD In pounds per square foot Effective No. of SIMPLE SPAN In feet Prestress 1/2" o (KIPS) STRANDS 28 32 36 40 44 :48 52 56 60 70;7 3 78 44 20 77;7 4 126 80 49 26 101.3 5 174 ' 117 78 50 27 124.8 6 221 153 106 70 43 23* 148.4 7 267 186 129 89 59 36 172.0 8 307 216 153 108 74 49 29 195.5 9. 343 243 174 125 89 61 40 23' 219.1 10 3781 270 195 142 103 73 50 31* 242.7 11 4131 297 217 160 117 85 60 40 24' SECTION PROPERTIES (with shear keys grouted) 10 A = 313 in2 I = 6136 ln4 2 1 = 1019 ins Yt = 6.02 in zb = 947 ins Yb= 6.48 In w =84psf .NOTES: . . . 1. The values given In this table are based on hollow core slabs without shear reinforcement. Superscripts (1, 2, etc.) following values in the table lnalcata the number of filled voids required at the ends of slabs to develop the allowable superimposed load. See page 2, "SHEAR" for discussion. 2. Asterisk(') following values In the table Indicate that the total deflection under all toads Is greater than U360 but less than U180. 3. Interpolation between values Is acceptable. Do not extrapolate values Into the blank spaces of the table. 4. These Span-Load Tables are Intended as an aid to preliminary sizing. Sound engineering Judgement Is required for the application of t~is Information lo specific design cases. MANUFACTURERS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE • TACOMA, WASHINGTON • ) 4196 SITE STRUCTURES 1051119th Ave SE, Suite C Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 Project Vuecrest Estates PRECAST HOLLOW CORE PLANK REVIEW Lid Data Soil Desity ···· ..... J25pcf .;:·: ·rstt Soil Cover depth over lid Plank design clear span Design Uniform Live Load .. ····};;fa'ft · .150 psf Design Superimposed Load 337.5 psf Plank capacity based on uniform superimposed load tables Plank span No of tendons Allowable superimposed loads Allowable superimposed loads base of design span of Based on flexural capacity Based on shear capacity Plank capacity based on truck load charts Plank span No of tendons C -''123:25 ft ·-<·· :-:,c 11: Allowable soil cover without knee-walls Allowable soil cover with knee-walls o.1llto 225 ft 6_5 td 4,0 ft 23.25 ft sheet date prJ. no. S-14-045 413 psf 599psf 497.. psf -• --- -__ :zL7./Jy__ -- HS20-44 TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON WALLS $-/Lf-OL/';;, _____ _ . \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I 8 -h-.-!n-r,n+-+--+--+-+-+--+--+--+-~~_.._.....__..__..__.__.___,._-+--i f IJJ.,, 1-- 1. ft r-r }? ff .. ' \ LL 6-+--+++-H,1,,1.r,..+,--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ . . i a: lJJ > 0 u > . -'- \_ ,~, i- ' \ . ·- ,\ ' ' ~ ' ''.I''\ ~ ....... \ -'I.L' ;~-. 1' '"' r-,.._ 400i SITE STRUCTURES FRONT AXEL: '--"'<--I I REARAXEL#l: I - REAR AXEL #2: -'l<--111 1[1 w I ( . 14' • I E Y•H't,;i 30' ~ HS20-44 72 ODOLBS 8,000LBS 32,000LBS 32,000LBS 8;000 lb HS2ilr44 3'2.000 lb S&.OOO•lb (1);1e 6.000 lb KSlS-44 a4.000 lb 24,000-lb axle sheet date 7/7ft,.f p!J. no. s-1'-/-oL/S . ;}-. w,4-some o, ,;o<respo•dlng· O.IW • 0.4W~ · H-tnd I w • oCll'!lll1"1!11 weigh! of fm two a>d11$ V • l'Ori®Je, Uli& spocing 1'11~ prQd~ees moxlmum sttess for ~iQII of ~nbs, ~terlioe of wheel t(> b,e l ft f,(llll curb DESIGN CRITERIA Code: Permitting Agency: Soil Cover: Lid Loading: Grating: Foundation Design: Vuecrest Estates Storm Water Detention Vault 2012IBC City of Renton 18" over the entire vault HS20-44 truck loading 150 psfuniform live load 6!16£T f 7 (7 /1</ Uniform live load not to act concurrently with truck wheel loading. 1 OOpsf pedestrian loading on raised grate Foundation design is based on the following values provided by Earth Solutions NW Allowable Bearing Pressure: Soil Design Values: At Rest Pressure: Active Pressure: Seismic Addition: Saturated Soil Density: Material Requirements: Rebar: Grade 60 4,000 psf 55 pcfEFW (Drained Level Backfill) 35 pcfEFW ( Drained Level Backfill) E = lOHpsfUniform 125 pcf Concrete: Lid: fc= 4000 psi walls and lid, fc=3000psi ftgs & grade slab Pre-cast, Pre-stressed Hollow Core Plank 12-1/2" thick. Vuecrest Estates Storm Water Detention Vault .l'rojectJVo.S-14-045 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS INDEX Design Criteria Lid Review Wall Design & Footing Design Grated Opening Framing 01-03 04-07 08-15 16-20 ~ --s ~S -I T_E_S_T_R_U_C_T_U_R_E_S_ I A Division of Kosnlk Engineering, PC Vuecrest Estates Storm Water Detention Vault Renton, Washington Structural Calculations •• -, ' Project No. S-14-045 First Issue 07-07-14 l""-r----· -- EXHIBIT 28 . -~,. ''-"'-'''! 1051119™ Ave SE, Suite C, Everett, WA 98208 + (425) 357-9600 (phone)+ e-mail: dan@kosnlk.com 11/30/13 . ' Left Coordinate: (0, 353) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft ~ I~'-~;· ; : -_ :: ,f;, ~~ . ·_7-~-,'') :·\'". ·"'-.·,. .-. " ::, '"-'""·-··· "' ~·-.-~ --····· .,··-~ ... ~...:. -~ ·,.,..J _-: I X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 71.5 pcf Direction: Vertical . X (ft) y (ft) 0 353 0 373 69 373 Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 S1CP8 Stability Ignore seismic load in strength: No ·::: , __ . ~~ ... ~.: . Material Points Region 1 Select Fill Soil 14, 13, 11,10,17, 16,15,9 Region 2 Dense Native Soil 7,12, 13,11,10, 17, 16, 15,9,4,5,6,8,1,2,3 Region 3 Vault 18,19,14,13,12,7 X (ft) y (ft) fileJ!/CNsers/henrv.Y..riq ht/Oocuments!S!opeWNuecrest Esta'.es/wecrast vault, seisrrJ::: condition.html Area (ft') 76 60341.89 1380 315 11/30/13 Slope Stability Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 Point4 95 350 Point 5 193 305 Point 6 304 250 Point 7 0 353 Point 8 j 307.86636 248.3727 Point 9 85 353.5 Point 10 75 353.5 Point 11 75 355.5 Point 12 69 353 Point 13 69 355.5 Point 14 69 362 Point 15 I 85 349.5 Point 16 80 349.5 Point 17 80 _353.5 Point 18 0 373 Point 19 69 373 . . !". ,Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius {ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 92 1.172 (338.858, 636.306) 388.384 (69, 362) (305.535, 249.354) --" ........ -_, "--,, ·- Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP {psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 . 69.7738 356.24345 -7617.3187 455.73913 284.77741 . 0 2 92 72.7738 353.40615 -7489.4051 429.12992 300.48001 200 3 92 77.5 349.0378 -7293.9671 570.67655 399.59202 200 4 92 82.5 344.5665 -7096.645 710.73119 497.65934 200 5 92 90 338.19575 -6821.5474 936.10115 655.46509 200 6 92 98.83175 331.0093 -6517.3999 1202.8683 842.25742 200 7 92 106.49525 325.1355 -6275.9955 1372.3839 960.95357 200 8 92 114.15875 319.556 -6053.047 1526.6186 1068.9499 200 9 92 121.82225 314.2555 -5847.4406 1669.8935 1169.272 200 10 92 129.48575 309.22045 -5658.3798 1806.2284 1264.7347 ' 200 11 92 . 137.14925 304.4388 -5485.1781 1938.4508 1357.3179 200 12 92 144.81275 299.89965 -5327.1189 2068.9509 1448.695 200 13 92 152.47625 295.5933 -5183.5151 2199.1503 1539.8616 200 14 92 I 160.13975 291.5111 -5053.9952 2329.7615 1631.3165 200 15 92 167.80325 287.64515 -4937.8597 2460.2608 1722.6931 200 16 92 175.1958 284.1106 -4819.0218 2584.7295 1809.8471 200 17 92 182.31745 280.88755 -4696.0616 2700.5181 1890.9232 200 fl I e-J !IC JU sers/henry. 'M"i g ht/0 ocuments/SlopeWN uecrest Estates/VJecr est vault, seismic condi':i on .html 415 11/30/13 Slope Stability 18 92 189.439 277.835 I -4583.842 2808.8621 1966.7854 200 19 92 196.9239 274.81015 I -4477.2995 2895.3947 2027.3772 200 20 92 I 204.77165 I 211.s26 I -4377.3251 2951.343 2066.5526 200 21 92 212.6194 I 269.0338 -4289.2657 2976.481 2084.1544 200 22 92 220.46715 I 2s5_4291 I -4213.0059 2963.2425 I 2074.8848 200 23 92 228.3149 264.00805 -4148.1084 2904.4577 2033.7232 200 24 92 236.16255 261. 7571 -4094.5481 2794.9939 1957.0758 200 25 92 I 244.0104 259. 703 -4051.8678 2631.842 1842.8356 200 26 92 251.85815 257.81285 -4020.1674 2414.9319 1590.9535 200 27 92 259.7059 256.09405 I -3999.1252 2147.4543 1503.6637 200 28 92 267.55365 254.5443 -3988.619 1835.1681 1284.9985 200 29 92 I 275.4014 253.16155 -3988.4817 1486.0479 1040.542 200 30 92 283.24915 251.944 -3998.7586 1109.6088 776.95647 I 200 31 92 I 291.0969 250.89005 -4019.2069 715.28301 500.84656 200 32 92 298.9447 249.9984 -4049.7982 311.85639 218.36419 200 33 92 303.4343 249.54115 -4064.7394 80.907527 56.652061 200 34 92 304.7673 249.4217 -4058.0532 18.813814 13.173574 200 filA·///C :/Users!henrv.wio ht/Docurrents/SlooeWNuecrest Estates/vJeCrest ·,rault, seismic condlti on.html 515 Elizabeth Higgins From: Sent . To: Subject: Good morning Elizabeth: Maire Thornton <mthornton@aesgeo.com> Monday, November 18, 2013 11:21 AM Elizabeth Higgins RE: Vuecrest in Renton Thank you for the positive input. Your thoughtfulness has brightened this cold gray day and has put a positive perspective on the start of the week for me. The second sentence means that the conditions have·not been met and that they should demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions by providing the results of stability analyses for existing and proposed site conditions. The changes indicated in red (see below) may clarify the intent. The sentence may have been clearer if it had been written as follows: The results of stability analyses which demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions listed above are required for both existing and proposed site conditions. Text taken from report: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of the stability analyses before and after development demonstrating how the three conditions as listed abore are sati~fied €Iii are required Hope that helps! Please make a note: AESI Tacoma has not moved but our street name has changed to Commerce Street Maire Thornton, P.E. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 I Tacoma, Washington 98402 CI 425-766-7340 0 I 253-722-2992 FI 253-722-2993 This email and any files transmittl:!d with it ore confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you ore notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or toking any action in reliance on the contents of this informatio_n is strictly prohibited. · EXHIBIT 22 1 From: Elizabeth Higgins [mailto:EHiggins1ruRentonwa.qov] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:27 AM To: Maire Thornton Subject: Vuecrest in Renton Hi Maire Jamie Waltier forwarded the AES report to. me last week. I will be meeting with an engineer from DR Strong this afternoon to hear how they intend to address the issues your report raises. I am very pleased with the report. Thank you very_ much I I have one question. On page 5, #3, would you please clarify the following: "The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of the stability analyses before and after development demonstrating [demonstrates?] how the three conditions as listed above are satisfied as [is?] required." Does the second sentence mean that the three conditions have been met, or does it mean, "is required" (they have not been met)? The sentence see·ms to be missing a verb, unless I am not reading it correctly. Thanks again for the excellent work! Elizabeth River Higgins, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 2 ' _ __ssociated Earth Science.__, _nc. October 31, 2013 Project No. TE130415A ~CI]~~~ Serving tfie 1'acific Jvortfiwest Since 1981 Geonerco Properties WA, LLC 1441 N 34" Street Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98103-8904 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Geotechnical Review Vuecrest Preliminary Plat LUA13-000642. Reference: "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed SmitheFS Avenue Residential Plat, 47XXS Smithers Avenue S, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date: February 25, 2013 "Slope Setback, Smithers Avenue Residential Plat, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date: April 10, 2013 "Slope Setback Response, Viewcrest Estates Residential Plat, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.LC. Report date: July 15, 2013. Renton Municipal Code, Code Publishing Company, eLibrary, current through Ordinance 5691, passed May 20, 2013, City Website: http://rentonwa.gov/ Dear Mr. Waltier: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed geotechnical review of the above-referenced documents prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) which are being used to support a request by the Geonerco Properties WA, LLC (Geonerco) to obtain permits for a 21-lot residential subdivision from the City of Renton. Authori.zation to proceed with this review was granted by Mr. Jamie Waltier of Geonerco and was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated August 14, 2013. The purpose of our review is to check for compliance with =um code standards, completeness, to note obvious factual errors, consistency of data with conclusions and standards of practice. To date, our services have included review of published and unpublished literature we have in our files, review of the .referenced reports, review of the "Vuecrest Estates, Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Road and Grading Plan," Sheet C4, dated September 20, 2013 by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers (DRS), and preparation of this letter. Kirkland • Everett • 425-827-7701 425-259-0522 2 w~w.aesgeo.com EXHIBIT 23 Site and Project Description Based on available information and the description provided in the February 25, 2013 ESNW report, the 5.3 acre site consists of an undeveloped, wooded parcel located south of South 47th Street at the intersection with Smithers A venue South where it enters into the site in Renton, Washington. Wetland tracts are mapped east and south portions of the site. Topography across that portion of the site to be developed slopes generally toward the south and west. Within the western portion of the site, a 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) (approximate) slope descends in excess of 100 vertical feet toward the western property line; total slope height is undetermined as topography presented on the referenced DRS Plan stops approximately 100 feet short of the west property line and does not show a toe of slope. A 3H: 1 V (approximate) slope descends to the south approximately 10 vertical feet toward a westerly trending ravine within the southerly portion of the site. The February 25th, 2013 ESNW report indicates that a visual slope reconnaissance was conducted across portions of the steep slope areas of the site and that no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed and that "stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good." It appears that ESNW did not have a detailed site plan showing current proposed development for preparation of the referenced February 25, 2013 report. The two subsequent reports referenced above describe currently proposed development and present stability sections that appear to be based on the referenced DRS Plan but do not list the specific reference. Proposed development as shown on the referenced DRS Plan includes a 21-lot subdivision with an estimated earthwork volume of approximately 3,300 cubic yards cut and 10,000 cubic yards fill. Development is concentrated to the flatter portion of the site and will occupy approximately the northeastern two-thirds of the property. Smithers Avenue is to be extended south from 4 7th Avenue to the central portion of the site where the roadway will tum east and extend to the eastern property line as SE 186'" Place. A storm water vault is to be located within the southwest portion of the development area. Lots 1 through 8 and the storm water vault are situated along the top of the westerly descending 2H: 1 V slope. A 4-foot-high rockery wall is proposed along the western edge of these lots and vault area. A 2H: 1 V fill slope will extend from the wall to the pad grade. Excluding the height of the wall, the fill slope achieves a maximum slope height of up to approximately 20 vertical feet. As planned, the structures on Lots 1 through 8 will extend anywhere from a few feet to approximately 40 feet onto the proposed fill slope. As proposed, the storm water vault will be discharged into the westerly trending ravine within the southern portion of the site. Subsurface Conditions The referenced reports generally summarize subsurface conditions at the site as glacial till. The February 25, 2013 report indicates that soil "terraces were observed down the steep slope at the west side of the site which may correlate to the recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits, however, the proposed development will not extend to those locations. " Test pit logs presented with the February 25, 2013 report indicate medium dense to dense, moist to wet 2 sand to a depth of 8 feet in TP-1 within the northeast portion of the site; medium stiff to hard, moist to wet silt located along the top of the slope in TP-6 and TP-7, and between 2.5 and 8 feet below ground surface within TP-8 within the western portion of the site; and, medium dense to very dense, generally moist, silty sand with variable gravel below the sand in TP-1, below the silt in TP-8 and within TP-2 through TP-5 across the remainder of the site. Review of the Geologic Map of King County, Booth, Troost, Wisher, May 2006, indicates that recessional outwash and/or pre-Fraser, coarse grained non-glacial soils on the westerly descending siope within the western portion of the site and glacial till within the central and eastern portion of the site. An earlier publication titled: Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, Publication Date: 1965, Map Scale: 1:24,000 indicates that the soils on the westerly descending slope within the western portion of the site consist of undifferentiated quaternary deposits of glaciofluvial sand and gravel, glaciolacustrine clay and sand, and non-glacial sand, clay and thin peat. Ground water was reported at a depth of 6 feet within the sandy soil reported in TP-1; ground water was not reported within the other test pits excavated at the site. Comments Based on our review, we have the following comments: 1. Our general impression is that subsurface conditions within all but the northeast portion of the site were treated in the reports as a single homogeneous unit, when it appears based on information presented on the referenced geologic maps, that site geology is more complex. Given the importance of slope stability to the project and the potential for geologic aspects of subsurface stratigraphy to play a major role in slope stability, the geology cross section of the slope and associated engineering properties should be defined in greater detail. A supplemental report should be prepared and should contain a geologic map and geologic cross-section(s). The map and section(s) should show the test pit locations, location and extent of geologic strata encountered, existing and proposed grade, proposed retaining walls, proposed buildings and conceptual depths of foundations. There may not currently be enough existing subsurface information to determine the presence of potentially adversely oriented interbeds of silt or other plane of weakness that could affect slope stability; additional, deeper subsurface exploration borings may be necessary. 2. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-3-050-Blc defines sensitive slopes as twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) and protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater. RMC 4-3-050-Jl defines "Geologic Hazards" and provides specific gnide!ines for activities on or within 50 feet of sites with geologic hazards. The following classifications for geologic hazards are taken directly from RMC 4-3-050-Jl: 3 a. Steep Slopes: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two foot (2 ') contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. ii. Steep Slope Types: (a) Sensitive slopes. (b) Protected slopes. b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard (IL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (IM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain fry soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LY): Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. c. Erosion Hazards: i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen percent ( 15 % ) . As indicated earlier in this letter, current development plans include placement of a 4 foot wall on the face of the westerly descending slope within the western portion of 4 the site. The wall is to support the toe of a 2H: 1 V fill slope to create support pads for the proposed residences and vault along the top of the slope. The residential structures on these pads will extend into the sloping area. 3. Based on the classifications presented above, the slope on which the retaining wall/fill slope is to be founded is a regulated steep sensitive/protected slope (RMC 4-3-050-Jla) with high erosion hazard (RMC 4-3-050-Jlb(iii)), and high landslide hazards (RMC 4-3-050-Jlc(ii)). Based on these designations, development is prohibited per RMC 4-3-050-JSa. In order for development to be allowed, RMC 4-3-050-JZ requires that a study must demonstrate the following: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of ~stability analyses before and atter development demonstrating how the . three conditions as listed above are satisfied~ required. ~ ?rY,~"" .e,vt.,~ tLVv 1\/ ,e,f 11., 4. Grading regulations outlined in RMC 4-4-0601 require that a line be established from which setbacks for structures and slopes is to be measured and a minimum setback for each are presented. The report documents imply that the line from which setback is to be measured is at the top of the existing westerly steep slope. Plans indicate that residential footings will extend into the steeply sloping fill within the western portion of the site. Based on the steepness of the slope (50 percent) a setback between the lowest outside edge of footings to daylight in the adjacent slope face would be more appropriate. 5. RMC 4-4-060 N6 indicates that creation of a permanent fill slope in excess of 15 feet high at a 40 percent gradient would create a protected steep slope and would not be allowed unless conditions of RMC 4-3-050 N2a(ii) are satisfied. As presented, the stability analyses evaluate the potential for deep-seated instability of the slope under both existing and proposed conditions. The analyses should. also consider the stability of the proposed fill slope/wall where slopes in excess of 15 feet are proposed (Lots 1, 7, and 8). The conditions of RMC 4-3-050.J.2 a (i, ii, iii) as indicated in Comment 2 must be met. 6. The following Table presents a summary of factors of safety presented for existing and proposed conditions anticipated at the site as presented in the April 10, 2013 and July 15, 2013 reports. During our review of the analyses, several issues were noted 5 which require re-evaluation of various conditions and presentation of revised factors of safety. Factor of Julv 15, 2013 Safety Aoril 10, 2013 Residential Area Vault Area Existin~ Pronosed Exist Proposed Existin~ Prooosed Static 2.127 1•2 1.9192 2.2003 2.091 2·' 2.1373 2.040'·'·' /1.629)4 (l.585)' Seismic 1.323 1·2 1.2282 1.3822 l .3662•5(1.095)4 1.3992 ·' 1.3472 ·'·' (1.236) (1.175)4 (1.090)4 1. Slice thickness 1s less than 1 foot between toe of slope and exit pomt. Exit pomt should be re-evaluated and modified. 2. Location of center/radius of failure circle shown on section does not agree with center/radius listed in calculation. 3. Missing results for slip circle center and slices -cannot evaluate results. 4. Value in parenthesis is presented on calculation sheets -does not agree with value indicated on section 5. Failure circle analyzed and results presented is inconsistent with results on section -entry/exit points for failure circle indicate a relatively small portion of the slope. 6. The vault should be modeled as a surcharge rather than a region with strength parameters. Stability analyses conducted on the westerly descending slope should be re-evaluated based on understanding of subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the slope enhanced through Comment 1, above. 7. ESNW indicates that rockeries will be used to "face" fill slopes. Rockeries may be used to mitigate erosion of cut slopes where very dense native soil is exposed. Unreinforced rockeries are not engineered structures and where in excess of 4 feet high (including imbedment depth), should not be used in place of retaining walls. 8. As proposed storm water from the detention vault is to be directed toward the southerly ravine and ultimately toward the westerly descending slope, ESNW has identified the soils on the slope as "high erosion hazard" and should consider alternate recommendations to prevent water from being directed over site slopes. Alternatively, the applicant should demonstrate that flow from the outfall system will not cause erosive flows. 9. February 25, 2013 report indicates design in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The City of Renton has adopted the 2012 IBC. Seismic design of structures should be in conformance with the 2012 IBC including recommended seismic surcharge on walls. Closure This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 6 • If you should have any questions, or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Tacoma, Washington on, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer MT/pc TEl30415A3 Projects\10130415\TE\WP 7 Maire Thornton, P.E. Senior Engineer July 15, 2013 ES-2660.01 Earth Solutions NW LLC Geonerco Properties WA, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Slope Setback Response Vuecrest Estates Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: • GeotechnicaJ Engineering • Const.ruction Monito~inh • Environmental Sciences As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address the setback from the top of a slope. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study for the site. Site Conditions The City of Renton Municipal Code defines steep slopes as follows: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Based on our observations and review of the referenced topographic survey, sensitive slopes are present along the western and southern portions of the property, and protected slopes are present along the western portion of the property. The referenced geotechnical engineering study identifies soil conditions onsite to consist of glacial till which is dense to very dense near the surface. EXHIBIT 24 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bel1evue, \f\JA 98005 • (425) 449-470< Geonerco Properties WA, LLC July 15, 2013 Proposed Development Adjacent to Slopes ES-2660.01 Page2 We understand that the proposed development will incorporate a four foot maximum rockery as well as a stormwater vault structure near the top of a slope at the west side of the subject property. The rockery will be located adjacent to the top of the slope, and will be facing a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) partial fill slope above. Single family residences will be located with a 20 foot setback from the top of the natural slope and the proposed stormwater vault is to be located with a 10 foot setback from the top of the natural slope near the southwest portion of the subject property. Slope Fill Placement Grading activities required to achieve the design alignment will include a four foot rockery facing a 2:1 partial fill slope. Portions of the 2:1 partial fill slope will be located within 20 feet of a sensitive slope area. Placement of fill on slopes is acceptable provided the existing slope is stripped and benched and a keyway is provided at the base. A typical slope fill placement detail is provided as an attachment. Opinion and Recommendations Section 4-3-050-J-2 of The City of Renton Municipal Code requires that development within 50 feet of a sensitive or protected slope must demonstrate 'i. [t]he proposal will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; ii. [t]he proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii. [t]he development can be safely accommodated on the site". We perfonmed a slope analysis of the proposed development, utilizing soil condition data, visual slope reconnaissance information, existing topography, and proposed topography and development. The results of the slope analysis are provided as an attachment. Based on the results of our slope analysis, and our understanding of the proposed development, in our opinion, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions, will not adversely impact other critical areas, and can be safely accommodated on the site. Earth Solutions MN, LLC Geonerco Properties WA, LLC July 15, 2013 If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Henry T. Wright, E.I.T. Staff Engineer Attachments: Site Plan Plate 1 -Slope Fill Placement Slope Stability Analysis cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) City of Renton Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal Attention: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins (Email only) Earth Solutions t,N,/, LLC ES-2660.01 Page 3 i ' !• :,1 ., 'T \! ~ i i ., i 1:1, ji ~1/: ~'i:; !11 l: ! l~ • .I ---•.. S31VlS3 lS3~~30/\ ~ ~ t \ \ \ \ I I I ! ,. ,,, -.,__ 'I \ ·, Ei ' ·-:. ::-:?~}.' ' fl I~ f 11 ; I ;,,., :;.:.::..· i:' ·,; ·~/ 1!·• ,·, ::::.:.:ii ([~ SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOTTO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Bench and Keyway Fill to consist of suitable granular material approved by the Geotechncial Engineer. Final Slope Gradient Compacted \e Face 2 I I .< . I _.,..,.. ___ _ I I 1 ! / .,----- ! . .,:... ___ _ _____ I J I t I I -.-----Typical "Bench" . . • I . r----- . I ·t------ 1 I I . I ---------I \ "Key" Keyed into Existing Slope Face Geotechnical Engineer to Verify Existing Grade (Minimum 2' Deep by 6' Wide) NOTES: o Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating Key Way or benches. o Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. o Final slope gradient should be 2 : 1 (horizontal : vertical). o Final slope face should be densified by over-building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. o Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. o Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to genminate. 0 Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the "Site Preparation and Earth Work" section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. • SLOPE FILL DETAIL Vuecrest Estates Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 07/11/2013 Proj. No. 2660.01 Checked HTW Date July 2013 Plate 400 390 ,_ 380 370,: 360~ -.._ 350 340 330 320 310 300 C 290 0 270 :.:, ~ Ql 280 LU 260 250 E----------Dense Native Soil 240 ------~ 230 ------------- 220 -------------- ----------------------·------------------------210 200 190 180 170 160 ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Residence Location), Static Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW ------ ---~------------.... ---~------------------------------- 150.._ ................. ~ ............ _._ ........ ~,...__...____.__ ............. ~...._....__.____.~ ....................... ~,...__...__._ ............ ~.:...... .............. ~,...__...___._ ............. ~ ....................... ~--.. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 400 390 380 ,_ 370,r ., 360 350 ,_ 340 ,_ 330 ,_ 320 •- 310 300 •-· 2200 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Residence Location), Static Condition July 11 , 2013 ByHTW c: 290 2 ~ Q) LU 280 270 ,_ 260 ,·::;-;.---.. -.. --------......... 250 240 230 220 ,_ 210 ,_ 200 ,_ 190 180 170 160 Dense Native Soil 150 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 7111/13 Slope Stabllity Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudlo 2007, versio.n 7.21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE lnternationa I Ltd. Title: Vue crest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 14 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 11:26:51 AM File Name: Vue crest Existing (Residence), Static Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Use rs\he nry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\ Vue crest Estates\ " . . s t··· ,"rOJECt e Lings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option; Constant Advanced file-J//C:/Users/henry:w•EighVDccurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Es1atesf.uecrest e>dsting (residence), static condltion.html 1/3 7/11/13 Slope Stability Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1' Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35' Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.25417, 368.97741) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (78.40479, 355.86507) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (86.04495, 352.36458) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (0, 369) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 fileJ//CJUsers/henry.'M"ighVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesA.uecrest e.xisting (residence), static condition.html 213 7/11/13 Slope Stabilify 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load: 0 ·:,. :c· ••. . "· . -' Material Points Area (ft2 ) Region 1 Dense Native Soil 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2 61452.5 X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point3 0 369 Point 4 45 365 Point 5 66 360 "Point 6 81 355 Point 7 148 320 Point 8 213 300 Point 9 311 250 Point 10 400 250 fi.leJ//CJUsers/hemy.wrfght/Doct.ments/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesA.uecreste.xistir,g (residence), static concition.html 3/3 C 0 '.;:::; ca > Q) LJ.J 400 390 3BO 370~-- 360 ,_ 350 340 330 320 •- 310 300 290 280 270 •- 260 250 r~--------- 240 - 230 ,_ 220 ,_ 210 ,-- 200 190 180 ,_ 170 Dense Native Soil 1.382 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Residence Location), Seismic Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW 160 1 -I 150 I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400 Distance 7/11/13 Slope Stab ii ity Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO~SLOPE !nternationa I Ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 15 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 12:09:46 PM File Name: Vuecrest Existing (Residence), Seismic Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Docume nts\SlopeW\ Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 12:09:50 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: !bf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View:2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piernmetric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file:/f/CJUsers/henry.wight/Docurrents/SI opeWNuecrest Estates/v.Jecrest w:istirg (residence), seismic conclition.h'lm 1/4 7/11t,3 ' Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35' Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 ,~Ht1 s,, ~.· .,J "~ f'"'" ''" ·,... ~· Left Projection: Range lw \"r·r >.~ r~t <. Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.25417, 368.97741) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (78.40479, 355.86507) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (86.04495, 352.36458) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Sud'ace Unf Left Coordinate: (0, 369) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft file:///C:/Users/her.ry:wrig ht/Docurnents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/weer est e:idsting (residence), seismic cordition..html 2/4 7111113 Slope Stabilit-/ X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 I 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 3,4,5,6, 7,8,9, 10,1,2 61452.5 X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 0 369 Point 4 45 365 Point 5 66 360 Point 6 81 355 Point 7 148 320 Point 8 213 300 Point 9 311 250 Point 10 400 250 Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 72 1.236 (358.026, 738.41) 490.211 (39.8904, 365.454) (309.884, 250.569) .. Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength ( psf) 1 72 42.445215 363.3048 -7624.8948 73.470895 51.444875 200 2 72 45.639765 360.6264 -7499.202 270.58802 189.46777 200 3 72 51.209645 356.1404 -7307.8444 532.71272 373.00946 200 4 72 61.06988 348.4293 -6987.6483 963.97772 674.98446 200 5 72 69.75 341.9485 -6725.0702 1278.8655 895.47124 200 6 72 77.25 336.6014 -6513.8947 1494.917 1046.7521 200 fi!e:///CJUsers/henry.wightfDocurrents/Slq:ieWNuecrest Estatesf\rtJOCrestID:isting (residence), seisrnlc condition.htm 7/11113' Slope Stability 7 I 12 85.785715 330.78475 -6290.2863 1649.3756 I 1154.9052 200 8 I 72 95.357165 324.5511 -6057.6176 1744.5466 I 1221.5447 200 9 72 J 104.9286 318.62825 -5844.3848 1828.2044 I 1280.1225 200 10 72 114.5 313.0032 -5649.6729 1903.021 I 1332.5091 200 11 72 124.0714 307.6643 -5472.8657 1970.7862 I 1379.9593 200 12 72 133.64285 302.601 -5313.2347 2032.1265 1422.9103 200 13 72 143.2143 297.8038 -5170.181 2086.6104 1461.0604 200 14 72 151.93915 293.64535 -5053.222 2205.235 1544.1221 200 15 72 159.81745 290.0786 1 -4959. 3088 2391.7152 j 1674.697 200 16 72 167.6958 286.6774 -4875.7459 2575.8415 I 1803.6236 200 17 72 175.7715 283.36095 -4778.5599 2760.245 1932.7444 200 18 72 184.0445 280.1338 -4668.0248 2941.9811 2059.9974 200 19 72 192.3175 277.0776 -4568.2167 3112.2163 2179.1973 200 20 72 200.5905 274.18895 -4478.7985 3266.0911 2286.9416 200 21 72 208.8635 271.4647 -4399.724 3398.2113 2379.4532 200 22 72 217.49345 268.79865 -4328.1769 3406.703 2385.3991 200 23 72 226.4803 266.20225 -4264.8501 3275.7891 2293.7322 200 24 72 235.46715 263.7902 -4213.0472 3093.2024 2165.8836 200 25 72 244.454 261.5597 -4172.6603 2857.4735 2000.8245 200 26 72 253.44085 259.5082 -4143.3209 2570.2657 1799.7194 200 27 72 262.4277 257.6334 -4125.0523 2235.5629 1565.358 200 28 72 271.41455 255.93325 -4117.7332 1859.8087 1302.2521 200 29 72 280.4014 254.40595 AlZl.0983 1451.0476 1016.0345 200 30 72 289.38825 253.04985 -4135.178 1018.0391 712.83867 200 31 72 298.37515 251.86355 -4159.8636 569.25321 398.59539 200 32 72 306.37635 250.941 -4153.8817 163.22112 114.28866 200 fileJ//C:/Users/henry.'IVi'i g ht/DocITTEffiS/S!opeWNuecrest Estatesf...uecrest axis ting (residence), seismic condition.htni 414 400 c- 390 ~ . r; psf Residence Surcharge 380 f 370 .. , ¥Rockery 360 350 / 340 ~Select Fill Soil I Partial 2H:1V Fill Slope 330 320 •- 310 300 c: 290 .Q 280 1ii ai iii 270 ,._ 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 Dense Native Soil ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed Residence, Static Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW 150 l ! J I ! ! I I ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! I I ! I I ! I ! I I I ! ! t I ! I ! t I t ! ! l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400 Distance 400 390 380 370 250 psf Residence Surcharge ' 360 ,_ 350 340 kSelect Fill Partial 2H: 1 330 320 ,_ 310 •- 300 •- >'Rockery 2 091 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed Residence, Static Condition July 11, 2013 By HTW c: 290 .Q 280 -Cll iii LJ.J 270 •-- 260 Dense Native Soil ::: ~------------------- 230 -------------. 220 ··-----------------------. 210 ----••• .......... _____ _ 200 ---------- 190 --------------------- 180 - 170 ,_ 160 •- ---------------------------------------------- 150 ~ ............. _.,_ ___ _..,_....__.__.._.....__._.,_....._......, _ _.__.__..__.__._.,_.....__._....__._.._.....__._.,_ ___ _._.,_ ____ .,_....__.__.._.....__._.,_~~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160170180190 200210 220 230 240250260 270 280290300 310 320 330 340 350 360370 380 390400 Distance 7/1 i/13 Slope Stabilit,; Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, ·:;) '; Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 19 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 1:05:41 PM File Name: Vue crest Proposed (Residence), Static Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Docume nts\SlopeW\ Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:05:43 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 20 Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Une Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Leh to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file:11/C JUsers/henry.wrig ht/Docl..lm3n1sJS1opeWNL¥:1Cfest Estates/V.Jeerest proposed (residence), static canditioo.h1ml 1/5 7/11/13 Slope Sta bi I ity FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35" Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40" Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Residence Surcharge Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 250 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure fi)e:/JIC JU sers/hervy.w-ig hVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates!VJecrest proposed (residence), static condition.htni 2/5 7/11113 Slope Stability Piezometri c Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (O, 372.5) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (71.44582, 361.71672) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (74.48028, 358.21091) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (397.54265, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 "r1-.;; "rs.:a· ~ C, ·l' m ·1 t" ,., •. l,J .J1..4 s i_,!_ ft, • .J; Left Coordinate: (0, 372.5) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Plez.ometric lines Coordinates. X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Seisrnlc loads Horz Seismic Load: 0 Regions Material Region 1 Select Fill Soil Region 2 Rockery Region 3 Dense Native Soil Region4 Residence Surcharge Points Points 14,3,4,10,11,13 12,5,10,11 6, 7,8,9, 1,2,3,4,10,S 16,13,14,15 Area (ft2 ) 373.75 14 61433.25 52 file-J/IC:Afsers/henry.v...right/Docurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/\A..J0Crest proposed (residence), static condltion.htm 315 7/11/13 Slope Stability X (ft) y (ft) Pointl 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 0 1 368 Point4 45 365 Point 5 72 359.5 Point 6 148 320 Point 7 213 300 Point 8 311 250 Point 9 400 250 Point 10 68 359.5 Point 11 68 363.5 Point 12 71 363.5 Point 13 52 371.5 Point 14 0 371.5 Point 15 0 372.5 Point 16 52 372.5 Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 77 1.629 (83.219, 394.107) 36.944 (55.3944, 369.803) (74.4803, 358.211) Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf} Strength ( psf} Strength (psf) 1 77 55.70952 369.4512 -8211.8676 17.083878 10.675192 0 2 77 56.3398 368.76535 -8179.3793 48.523808 30.32104 0 3 77 56.97008 368.11285 -8149.024 75.729556 47.321078 0 4 77 57.60036 367.4913 -8120.4885 99.65228 62.269655 0 5 77 58.23064 366.89855 -8093.7781 121.05085 75.640964 0 6 77 58.86092 366.33275 -8068.8239 140.53016 87.812988 0 7 77 59.491205 365.7923 -8045.3514 158.59894 99.103617 0 8 77 60.12149 365.27575 -8023.4573 175.64508 109.75523 0 9 77 60.75177 364.78185 -8002.8282 191.9913 119.96948 0 10 77 61.38205 364.30945 -7983.6623 207.88108 129.89851 0 11 77 62.01233 363.85755 -7955.8408 223.51799 139.66954 0 12 77 62.64261 363.42525 -7949.0785 238.99285 149.33931 0 13 77 63.27289 363.01175 -7933.5985 254.36607 158.94556 0 14 77 63.90317 362.6163 -7919.2535 269.65089 168.49657 0 15 77 64.53345 362.23825 -7905.9222 284.78182 177.95143 0 16 77 65.163735 361.87695 -7893.6703 299.65135 187.24294 0 17 77 65.79402 361.53185 -7882.4925 314.06576 196.25007 0 18 77 66.4243 361.20245 -7872.1786 327.81196 204.83964 0 19 77 67.05458 360.88825 -7862.8822 340.58603 212.82177 0 fileJVC :/Users/henry.'M"ig ht/Oocurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/1JUeeres! proposed (residence), static condition.html 4/5 7/11/13 Slope Stability 20 77 67.68486 3uv.58885 -7854.4259 352.0478 u9.98388 0 21 77 68.2858 360.3165 -7847.2889 407.37415 341.8275 0 22 77 68.8574 360.0696 -7841.2744 446.89155 I 374.98654 io 23 77 69.429 359.834 -7835.8145 I 484.27895 ! 406.35829 [o 24 77 70.0006 359.6095 -7831.1033 518.98049 435.47634 lo 25 77 70.6432 359.37085 -7826.7317 551.35905 I 386.06576 1 200 26 77 71.25 359.15605 -7823.2053 446.77 I 312.s31n 200 27 77 71.75 358.98875 -7821.0954 208.16076 I 145.75573 200 -I 28 77 72.310035 358.8113 -7819.1435 74.693799 52.301161 200 29 77 72.930105 358.6256 -7817.6889 47.940499 33.568299 200 30 77 73.550175 358.45165 -7816.9494 18.99098 13.297627 200 31 77 74.170245 358.28925 -7816.9001 -11.526695 -8.0710786 200 fileJ//C1Users/henry.w-ig hVOocuments/S!opeWNuecrest EstatesMleGrest proposed (residence}, static condition.htni 5/5 C 0 :;::; ctl [i LU 400 ;·-·· I 390 ~50 psf Residence Surcharge 380 f 370 ..--Rockery 360 - 350 8 340 Select Fill Partial 2H:1 330 - 320 •- 310 300 290 280 270 260 •- Dense Native Soil 250 c·------- 240 ---------- 230 220 210 •- 200 •- 190 180 •- 170 160 1.366 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed Residence, Seismic Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW 150 ._....__.._.._..,__.. ..... _.L......J...--'--'--'--'----'--'--'-.....I.-.L........l--L-'-...l--'-.....1--'-..J.......1.-.L........l-....1..-'---'--'-.....1.-.L........l---'--'--'--'---' 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140 150160170180190 200210220230240 250 260 270 280290300 310 320 330340 350360370380 390 400 Distance 7111113 Slope StabiVily Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE lnternatiana I Ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 20 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 1:09:16 PM File Name: Vuecrest Proposed (Residence), SeismicCondition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\ Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:09:20 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pd View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Si de Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Us~ Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fileJ//CJUsers/henry.wig ht/Docuroonts/SlopeWNuecrest Estatesf...uecrest proposed (residence), seismic condition.html 1/5 7111113 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Opt1un: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 • Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pd Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35' Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piewmetric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pd Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:32' Phi-B:O' Pore Water Pressure Piewmetric Line: 1 Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40' Phi-B: 0' .-Pore Water Pressure Piernmetric Line: 1 Residence Surcharge Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 250 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 40' Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure fil e-J//C JUsers/henry.wig ht/Docurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/\lU0Crest proposed (residence), seisn'Vc cordition.htITT 2/5 7111/13 S!ope Stability Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0, 372.5) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (71.44582, 361.71672) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (74.48028, 358.21091) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (397.54265, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (O, 372.5) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No .. Material Region 1 Select Fill Soil Region 2 Rockery Region 3 Dense Native Soil Region 4 Reside nee Surcharge Points 14,3,4,10,11,13 12,5,10,11 6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,10,5 16, 13, 14, 15 Area (ft') 373.75 14 61433.25 52 file-J//C JUsers/henry.v..,-ig hVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/\o1J8Crest prcposed { residerce), seismic condition.html 315 7/11/13 Slope Stability ?o;nts X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point3 0 368 Point4 45 365 Point 5 72 359.5 , Point 6 148 320 Point 7 213 300 Point 8 311 250 Point9 400 250 Point 10 68 359.5 Point 11 68 363,5 Point 12 71 363,5 Point 13 52 371.5 Point 14 0 371.5 Point 15 0 372.5 Point 16 52 372.5 > Slip Sutiace FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry ( ft) Exit (ft) 1 51 1.095 (160.623, 633.019) 287,993 (37.8633, 372.5) (74.4803, 358.211) . Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Sutiace Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 51 38.399605 372.24865 -8130.7732 46.254716 38.812315 0 2 51 39.47211 371.74865 -8113.46 138.78409 116.45368 0 3 51 40.635475 371.2126 -8095.3437 226.12457 141.29831 0 4 51 41.88971 370.6414 -8075.2303 283.97324 177.44618 0 5 51 43.143945 370.0774 -8056.1917 341.14518 213.17117 0 6 51 44.39818 369.5206 -8038.2369 397.77564 248.55781 0 7 51 45.652415 368.97095 -8019.9186 453.97959 283.67793 0 8 51 46.851575 368.4519 -8004.8563 507.45387 317.09237 0 9 51 47.99567 367.96285 -7993.0271 558.2996 348.86431 0 10 51 49.139765 367.4796 -7981.5672 609.08228 380.59685 0 ' 11 51 50.28386 367.00215 -7970.4862 659.86225 412.3277 0 12 51 51.427955 366.5305 -7959.7061 710.70797 444.09963 D 13 51 52.615385 366.04715 -7949.2286 531.65833 332.21699 0 14 51 53.846155 365.5525 -7938.3046 521.75488 326.02863 0 15 51 55.076925 365.0644 -7927.8443 511.43554 319.58039 0 16 51 56.307695 364.58285 -7917.8513 500.63085 312.82888 0 17 51 57.538465 364.1078 -7908.3469 489.26448 305.72638 0 fi)eJ/JCJUsers/henry.wright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Esbtes/v.;ecrest proposed (residence), seismic condition.htrrl 415 7111113 Slope Stability" 18 51 58.769235 3o,.~3925 -7899.3288 477.27328 _,~.23345 0 19 51 60 363.1771 -7890.8002 464.56372 290.29163 0 20 51 61.230765 362.72135 -1882.0138 I 451.0577 i 281.s5213 0 21 I 51 62.461535 362.21195 I -7874.4969 436.69123 272.87497 lo 22 51 63.692305 361.82885 -7866.7262 421.39242 263.31521 0 23 51 64.923075 361.3921 -7859.4676 405.10436 253.1373 0 24 51 66.153845 360.9616 -7852.7361 387.77825 242.31075 0 25 51 67.384615 I 360.53735 i -7846.5348 369.37983 230.81414 0 26 51 68.617705 360.11855 -7840.5745 396.65391 332.83215 0 27 51 69.853115 359.70515 -7834.7836 442.46285 371.27042 0 28 51 70.73541 359.4131 -7831.0086 447.03481 313.01715 200 29 51 71.5 359.16345 -7827.8127 236.39673 165.52677 200 30 I 51 72.62007 358.8017 -7823.7949 1.6322479 1.1429123 200 31 51 73.86021 358.4068 -7818.9155 -31.133416 -21.799853 200 file:///C JUsers/henry.wrig ht/Documents/S!opeWNuecrest Estatesf.AJecrest proposed (residence), seismic condition.him 515 400 390 f- 380 3701-...........................__ 3eo 1-~ 350 340 •- 330 320 •- 310 •- 300 c: 290 0 :;:, ~ Q) LU 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 Dense Native Soil ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Vault Location), Static Condition July 11, 2013 By HTW 150 I I ! I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 400 ~ 390 ,_ 380 ,_ 37uj""'t'---............_--..... 360 [_ -,,, 350 340 ,_ 330 320 310 300 <::: 290 0 :;:::: ~ Q) w 280 270 260 •- 250 240 230 220 •- 210 , __ 200 ,_ 190 ,_ 180 ,_ 170 ,_ 160 - Dense Native Soil 2.137 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Vault Location), Static Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW ---------------------------------------------------- 150 I ! 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400 Distance 7/11/13 Slope Stabi!ity Sia pe Stability Re port generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE lnternationa I Ltd. i"· r Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 10 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 10:37:19 AM File Name: Vuecrest Existing, StaticCondition.gsr Di rectory: C;\Users\henry. wright\Docume nts\SI opeW\ Vuecrest Estates\ :-115::; Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Directioi:i of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced fileJNC:/Users/henry.'Mig hVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wee rest e:xisting, static condition.html 1/3 7/11/13 Slope Stabil it'j Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soi! Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0, 370) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (89.06268, 352.8806) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (98.74228, 348.53635) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (O, 370) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 fil eJI/C JUsers/henry.'M"ig ht/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estatesl\A.JeCrest existing, static condition.html 7/11/13' Slope Stability 1 45.27953 240.31824 I 171.63495 207.50984 i 302.85855 184.40725 i i 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load; 0 Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 9,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3 61315 X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 Point4 80 357 Point 5 91 352 Point 5 129 335 Point 7 193 305 Point 8 304 250 Point 9 0 370 fil 0:///C :/Users/henrywrig h!/Docurnents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/\.Uecrest existing, static condition.html 3/3 c:: 0 :;:, C'll > .Bl LJ.J 400 390 380 37 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 ::~ [_------- 230 ,-- 220 ,_ 210 ,_ 200 190 ,_ 180 ,_ 170 160 -- Dense Native Soil 150 I I I I 1.399 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Vault Location), Seismic Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 7r1113 S!ope Stability Slope Stability Re port gene rated using GeDStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE l nternationa I Ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 12 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 10:40:57 AM File Name: Vuecrest Existing, Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Use rs\he n ry.wright\Documents\SI opeW\ Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 10:41:00 AM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: !bf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 52.4 pcf View:2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fi!el//C:N sers/henry.\Nl'"ig hUDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estal:esfVuecrest e>asting, seismic condition.htm 114 7/11113 Sfope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Co11stant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maxi mum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0, 370) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (89.06268, 352.8806) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (98.74228, 348.53635) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Cf,,.,~, ,rf::,, , r• ,,.:.r,>cf~,,l-..;~,-.{§f;...f -""'· Left Coordinate: (0, 370) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft fileJ//CAJsers/henry.wight/Dccurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Es1atesf,,,.uecrest e>dsting, seismic condition.htm 2/4 7111/13 X (ft} 0 46.27953 171.63495 302.86855 400 -"' ~ "' "' ", '.'.'~ -: ' . y (ft} ' 249.88736 240.31824 207.50984 i 184.40726 I 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Slope stability Ignore seismic load in strength: No • c; .•. - f 'i \'-:; Material Points Area (ft2 } Region 1 Dense Native Soil 9,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3 61315 X (ft) y (ft} Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 Point4 80 357 Point 5 91 352 Point 6 129 335 Point 7 193 305 Point 8 304 250 Point 9 0 370 ' Slip Surface FOS Center (ft} Radius (ft} Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 92 1.175 (339.295, 641.678) 392.199 (67.3696, 359.052) (301.337, 251.319) Sik:es of SH~) Surface-: 92 Slip X (ft} y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress ( psf) Strength [psf) Strength ( psf) 1 92 70.527175 356.0809 -7619.5344 97.54932 68.304769 200 2 92 76.84239 350.26555 -7359.9058 478.95689 335.36922 200 3 92 85.5 342.7521 -7032.6246 819.27166 573.6602 200 4 92 94.8 335.05245 -6703.8116 1074.4534 752.34039 200 5 92 102.4 329.1421 -6459.1838 1256.0165 879.47221 200 6 92 110 323.52315 -6232.6426 1420.2458 I 994.46678 200 7 92 117.6 318.1803 -6023.4027 1571.9501 1100.6913 200 fileJ/ICAJsers/henry.lAf'ig ht/DocL.11Tents/StopeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrest existing, seisl'Tlc condition.html 3/4 7111/13 Slope Stability 8 92 125.2 313.1001 -5830.4699 1714.9219 I lL00.8012 I 200 9 92 133.2635 307.99165 -5643.4118 1853.2304 1297.6459 200 10 92 141.7905 :;!02.8738 -5463.2883 1989.653 1393.17 200 11 92 150.3175 298.04375 -5301.2156 2124.5761 1487.6442 200 12 92 158.8445 293.48955 -5156.2418 2258.7257 1581.5767 200 13 92 167.3715 289.20045 -5027.9122 2391.2123 1674.3449 200 14 92 175.1958 285.4804 -4904.5383 2509.8503 1757.4161 I 200 15 92 182.31745 282.2846 -4783.316 2611.3743 1828.5039 200 16 92 189.43915 279.25695 -4672.5667 2703.4423 I 1892.9707 200 17 92 196.8692 276.27645 -4568.2195 2773.9704 I 1942.355 200 18 92 204.60755 273.35345 -4470.8915 2814.7271 1970.8931 200 19 92 212.3459 270.61485 -4384.9181 2824.282 1977.5835 200 20 92 220.0843 268.0566 -4310.3788 2795.7384 1957.5971 200 21 92 227.82265 265.675 -4246.7882 2723.2373 1906.8313 200 22 92 235.561 263.4667 -4193.9624 2602.5173 1822.3023 200 23 92 243.2994 261.4287 -4151.7816 2431.8544 1702.8028 200 24 92 251.03775 259.55825 -4120.0747 2211.7607 1548.6915 200 25 92 258.7761 257.8529 -4098.6209 1945.9185 1362.5468 200 26 92 266.5145 256.3105 -4087.4075 1639.9661 1148.3166 200 27 92 274.25285 254.9291 -4086.2563 1301.7654 911.50595 200 28 92 281.9912 253.7069 -4094.9493 939.56792 657.89254 200 29 92 289.7296 252.64245 -4113.4902 562.04924 393.55111 200 30 92 297.46795 251.73445 -4141.849 176.78827 123.78848 200 fileJ//C JUsers/henry.wrig ht/Docurrents/SlopeWNuec::rest EstatesM.JeCrest e>asting, seismic condition.html 414 C .Q -(1) > Q) UJ 400 390 )····-·- 380 370 360 L Vault 350 •- 340 •- 330 •- 320 310 •- 300 •·- 290 •- 280 •- 270 260 250 ------------- Select Fill Soil 2H:1V Fill Slope j Rockery Dense Native Soil 240 -------- 230 --------------- 220 -·--------------- 210 ---------- 200 190 180 ~- 170 160 ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed Vault, Static Condition July11,2013 ByHTW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 I I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150160170180 190200 210 220 230 240 250260 270280290 300 310 320 330 340350 360 370 380 390400 Distance ,:: 0 +l ro > Q) LL.J 400 390 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 r-- 240 --- 230 220 ,_ 210 , ___ 200 ,_ 190 180 ,_ 170 160 ,_ Select Fill Soil 2H:1V Fill Slope j Rockery Dense Native Soil 2,040 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed Vault, Static Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW 150 I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240 250 260 270280290 300 310 320 330340350 360370380 390400 Distance 7/11/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Re port generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE lnte rnatior.a I Ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 4 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 10:19:00AM File Name: Vue crest Vault, Static Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Docume nts\Earth Sol utions\2734 LnL \ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 10:19:02 AM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psi Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pd View: 2D Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W n Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine .PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fi I eJ/fC JU sers/henry.w-i g hVDocumants/S!opeWNuecr est Estates/IA.Jeer est vault, static condi tion.htni 115 7i11/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° ,;: . ·''·; ,,., j. j .::;;:; ! .:':; Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Rockery Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 40° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 100 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure fil e:11/C :/Users/henry. wri g ht/Docurrents/SI opeWNuecrest EstatesA..uecr est vault, static conditi on.htm ?15 7/11/13 Slope Stability Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.48447, 373) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (93.08109, 351.06899) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (99.10306, 348.37495) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (D, 373) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft c::;,{~ .,._, 1, , r"< "'"'""' "'"' r_.(;. X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 g "'...,.v,c (,.t} i .,:, Material Region 1 Dense Native Soil Region 2 Rockery Region 3 Select Fill Soil Region 4 Vault X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point3 0 150 Points 2, 1, 16, 15, 14, 13, 10,9,5,4, 3 13,12,11,10 8,9,10,11 7,8,9,5,4.6 Area (ft') 60469.5 18 96 1400 fileJ//C }Users/henry.wig hVDocurrents/Sl:ipeWNuecrest Est:ates/vJecrest vault, static condition.html 3/5 7/11/13 Slop~ Stabjlity Point 4 0 353 Point 5 70 353 Point 6 0 373 Point 7 70 I 373 Point 8 70 364 Point 9 70 356 Point 10 86 352 Point 11 86 356 Point 12 90 356 Point 13 91 352 Point 14 129 335 Point 15 193 305 Point 16 304 250 Critical Silp Surfaces Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 52 1.585 ( 113.173, 428.033) 80.891 (53.888, 373) ( 99. 1031, 348. 375) Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 52 54.620345 372.2315 -8367.3751 48.419148 40.628489 0 2 52 56.085075 370.73335 -8297.9264 142.13893 119.26872 0 3 52 57.549805 369.31 -8233.396 230.62034 193.51344 0 4 52 59.014535 367.9561 -8172.6971 315.35648 264.6155 0 5 52 60.479265 366.667 -8115.991 397.67786 333.69135 0 6 52 61.943995 365.4387 -8063.3828 478.73628 401.70743 0 7 52 63.408725 364.26775 -8013.9892 559.52607 469.49812 0 8 52 64.87345 363.151 -7968.6751 640.95508 537.82517 0 9 52 66.338175 362.0857 -7925.8304 723.67246 607.23329 0 10 52 67.802905 361.0694 -7886.3168 808.30084 678.24494 0 11 52 69.267635 360.09985 -7849.6851 895.23107 751.18806 0 12 52 70.732515 359.175 -7816.0182 402.82913 251.71558 0 13 52 72.197545 358.2931 -7784.8674 428.55024 267.78791 0 14 52 73.662575 357.45265 -7756.5782 452.51173 282.76071 0 15 52 75.127605 356.6522 -7730.0896 474.52739 296.51762 0 16 52 76.59264 355.89035 -7706.6564 494.31817 308.88428 0 17 52 78.057675 355.1659 -7685.6526 511.49343 319.61657 0 18 52 79.522705 354.4778 -7666.3621 525.58433 328.42154 0 19 52 80.987735 353.82495 -7649.8599 536.04126 334.95575 0 20 52 82.452765 353.2065 -7635.3086 542.28245 338.85568 0 21 52 83.917795 352.6216 -7622.4392 543.68902 339.73461 0 22 52 85.325155 352.08995 -7612.1405 554.02442 387.93208 200 23 52 86.666665 351.61125 -7604.5681 611.88713 428.44798 200 fileJ//C:/Users/henry.v.,-ight!Documents/SlopeWNoocrest Estateslvuecrestvault, static condition.html 415 7/1 i/13 SI ope Stability 24 52 88 I 351.1617 -7597.9772 666.6334 I 466. 18114 200 25 52 89.333335 350.7378 -7593.2892 715.3674 i 500.90564 200 26 52 90.5 I 350.3862 -7590.4166 493.92327 345.8488 200 27 52 91.810305 350.0183 -7588.6478 227.45113 I 1s9.263 ! 200 28 I 52 93.430915 349.59245 -7588.7771 181.46165 127.06082 200 29 52 95.05153 349.20225 -7591.0423 129.1253 90.414505 I 200 30 52 96.672145 348.84715 -7595.0331 71.709725 50.21169 ! 200 31 52 98.292755 348.5266 -7601.5117 10.5401 7.3802573 I 200 fi I eJ//C JU sers/henry.wig ht/Docwn:mts/Si opeWNuecrest Es tatesMJecrest vault, static condi tion.htm 515 C: 0 :.= ro > Q) LU 400 --- 390 380 370 360 350 340 •- 330 •·-· 320 •- 310 300 •- 290 •- 280 •- 270 ,_ 260 ,--- 250 r----- 240 230 •- 220 1~ 210 200 ,_ 190 ,_ 180 170 160 ,_ Select Fill Soil 2H:1V Fill Slope j ....... -------Rockery Dense Native Soil 150 ' 1.347 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed Vault, Seismic Condition July 11, 2013 ByHTW 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100110 120130140150160170180190 200 210 220230 240250 260270 280290 300 310 320330 340 350 360 370 380 390400 Distance 7/11/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report ger.erated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .2L Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE Jnternationa I ltd, Title: Vue crest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 7 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 10:25:06AM File Name: Vue crest Vault, Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\hen ry. wright\Docume nts\SlopeW\ Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 Last Solved Ti me: 10:25:08 AM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fi I e:J//C :/Us ers/henry.'Mi g hVO ocurrents/SlopeWN uecrest Estates/vUecrest vault, seismic condition.html 115 7/11/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Co11stant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35° Phi-8:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Rockery Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pd Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Mode I: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 100 pcf Cohesion: O psf Phi:40° Phi-B: D 0 Pore Water Pressure fi leJ//C JU sers/henry.w-ig hl!Documents/Sl opeWNuecrest EstalesJVL..JeCrest vault, s eisrri c conditloo.hbnl '215 • 7/11/13 Sf ope Stability Piezometric Line: 1 y;.~, 1,,· > ' Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.48447, 373) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (93.08109, 351.D6899) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (99.103D6, 348.37495) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (0, 373) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No - Material Points Region 1 Dense Native Soil 2,1,16, 15, 14, 13, 10,9,5,4,3 Region 2 Rockery 13, 12, 11, 10 Region 3 Select Fill Soil 8,9,10,11 Region 4 Vault 7,8,9,5,4,6 Area (ft 2 ) 60469.5 18 96 1400 fileJ//C:/Users/henry:11•.K"ighVDocuments{SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest..ault, seismic condition.html 315 7/11/!3 Slope Stabilily X (ft) y (ft) . Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 Point 4 0 353 Point 5 70 353 Point 6 0 373 Point 7 70 373 Point 8 70 364 Point 9 70 356 Point 10 86 352 Point 11 86 356 Point 12 90 356 Point 13 91 352 Point 14 129 335 Point 15 193 305 Point 16 304 250 Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 52 1.090 ( 113.173, 428.033) 80.891 (53.888, 373) {99.1031, 348.375) Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress ( psf) Strength ( psf) Strength ( psf) 1 52 54.620345 372.2315 -8367.3751 41.177 34.551605 0 2 52 56.085075 370.73335 -8297.9264 119.60583 100.36121 o 3 52 57.549805 369.31 -8233.396 191.82014 160.9562 0 4 52 59.014535 367.9561 -8172.6971 259.52129 217.76422 0 5 52 60.479265 366.667 -8115.991 324.28742 272.10946 0 6 52 61.943995 365.4387 -8063.3828 387.62037 325.25211 0 7 52 63.408725 364.26775 -8013.9892 450.97931 378.41657 0 8 52 64.87345 363.151 -7968.6751 515.76512 432.77832 0 9 52 66.338175 362.0857 -7925.8304 583.34646 489.4858 0 10 52 67.802905 361.0694 -7886.3168 654.9605 549.57711 0 11 52 69.267635 360.09985 -7849.6851 731.81542 614.06605 0 12 52 70.732515 359.175 -7816.0182 308.4047 192.71265 0 B 52 72.197545 358.2931 -7784.8674 334.62924 209.09956 0 14 52 73.662575 357.45265 -7756.5782 361.85453 226.1118 0 15 52 75.127605 356.6522 -7730.0896 390.06443 243.73931 0 16 52 76.59264 355.89035 -7706.6564 419.0171 261.83094 0 17 52 78.057675 355.1659 -7685.6526 448.19548 280.06362 0 Tile:///CJUsers/henrywrighVDocurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vUecrest vault, seismic condition.htm 415 7/11/13 Slope stability 18 52 79.52270:i 354.4778 -7666.3621 476.81532 297.94728 0 19 52 80.987735 353.82495 -7649.8599 503.82243 314.82319 0 20 52 82.452765 353.2065 -7635.3086 I 527.93625 329.89118 0 21 52 83.917795 352.6216 -7622.4392 ! 547. 70452 ! 342.24377 0 22 / 52 I 85.325155 352.08995 -7512. 1405 I 630.5632 j 441.52511 200 23 52 86.666665 351.61125 -7604.5681 i 687.56435 I 481.43774 200 24 52 88 351.1617 -7597.9772 I 738.12994 516.84415 200 25 I 52 89.333335 350.7378 -7593.2892 779.53947 545.83941 200 26 52 90.5 350.3862 -7590.4166 560.18607 392.24651 200 I 27 52 91.810305 350.0183 -7588.6478 291.99422 204.45655 200 28 52 93.430915 349.59245 -7588.7771 229.63201 160.79007 200 29 52 95.05153 349.20225 -7591.0423 159.84908 111.92753 200 30 52 96.672145 348.84715 -7595.0331 85.434306 59.821745 200 31 52 98.292755 348.5266 -7601.5117 8.9886223 6.2939011 200 file:1//C:/Users/henry.wrig ht/Docurrents/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesN,.J0Clest vault, seismic condition.html 5/5 • J;,l_izaheth Higgins • ·™· r:rom: Sent: Henry Wright <Henry.Wright@earthsolutionsnw.com> Monday, July 15, 2013 12:37 PM To: Cc: Subject: Hi Elizabeth, Thank you, Henry T. Wright, E.I.T. Staff Engineer Earth Solutions NW, LLC Elizabeth Higgins Kyle Campbell RE: Vuecrest Slope Analysis 1805136th Place NE, Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 Office (425) 449-4704 • Fax (425) 449-4711 Cell (206) 793-4193 • Radio ID 112'71686'5 From: Elizabeth Higgins [mailto:EHiqqins@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:48 AM To: Henry Wright Subject: RE: Vuecrest Slope Analysis "ASAP" being a relative term, when might we expect an updated letter? As I mentioned in my telephone message of earlierthis morning, I will be presenting this project to the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee at 3 pm today. I will be basing staff recommendations on the ESNW report, as it now stands. Thank you I Elizabeth River Higgins Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 .-rom: Henry Wright [mailto:Henry.Wright@earthsolutionsnw.com1 Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:09 AM To: Elizabeth Higgins 1 EXHIBIT 25 Ge: Kyle Campbell SubJect: RE: Vuecrest Slope An Hi Elizabeth, We will address the issues you have raised and reevaluate the proposed development near the slope. We will try to have an updated letter prepared ASAP. Thank you, Henry T. Wright, E.I.T. Staff Engineer Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 136th Place NE, Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 Office (425) 449-4704 • Fax (425) 449-4711 Cell (206) 793-4193 • Radio ID 112•71535•5 ·------------ From: Elizabeth Higgins [mailto:EHiqqins@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: Henry Wright Subject: Vuecrest Slope Analysis Mr. Wright One other item needs clarification. In your letter of April lO'h, on page 2 you cite RMC 4-3-0SOJ.2, specifically subsection b) The required studies shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: "i) The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions." There are two additional conditions that must be met, ii) The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii) The development can be safely accommodated on the site. We would appreciate having the ESNW statement of assurance expanded to include the additional criteria. Thank you. Elizabeth River Higgins Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 2 ' April 10, 2013 ES-2660.01 Earth Solutions NW LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Subject: Mr. Jamie Waltier Slope Setback Smithers Avenue Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: • Ceotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address the setback from the top of a slope. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study for the site. Site Conditions The City of Renton Municipal Code defines steep slopes as follows: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Based on our observations and review of the referenced topographic survey, sensitive slopes are present along the western and southern portions of the property, and protected slopes are present along the western portion of the property. The referenced geotechnical engineering study identifies soil conditions onsite to consist of glacial till which becomes dense to very dense near the surface. EXHIBIT 26 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449- Geonerco Properties, LLC April 10, 2013 Proposed Development Adjacent to Slopes ES-2660.01 Page2 We understand that the proposed development will incorporate a three to four foot rockery as well as a stormwater vault structure near the top of a slope at the west side of the subject property. The rockery will be located adjacent to the top of the slope, and will be facing a 2:1 partial fill slope above. Single family residences will be located with a 20 foot setback from the top of the natural slope. The proposed stormwater vault is to be located with a 1 O foot setback from the top of the natural slope near the 1,outhwest portion of the subject property. Section 4-3-050-J-2 of The City of Renton Municipal Code requires that development within 50 feet of a 1,ensitive or protected slope must demonstrate "[t]he proposal will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions". We performed a slope analysis of the proposed development, utilizing soil condition data, visual slope reconnaissance information, existing topography, and proposed topography and development. Based on the results of our slope analysis, and our understanding of the proposed development, in our opinion, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard lo adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Henry T. Wright, E.I.T. Staff Engineer Attachments: Slope Analysis Data cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal Earth Solutions NW, LLC C 0 .,, "' ai iii 440 430 420 410 400 390 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 Distance .'LJ2,J_ ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue Existing Conditions Static Condition April 2, 2013 ByHTW 4/2113 SLOPE/VY Analy:,is SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated uslngGeoStudio 2007, version 7 .11. Copyright© 1991-2008 GEO-SLOPE lnternat1ona l Ltd. Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 11 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 4/2/2013 Time: 9:54:19 AM File Name: Smithers Ave Existing Conditions, Static Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Use rs\he nry .wright\Docu me nts\51 ope W\2660.01 \ Last Solved Date: 4/2/2013 Last Solved Ti me: 9:54:23 AM Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No SlipSurface · Direction of movement: Left to Right Allow Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant 412113 SLOPENv Anal)61S Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Dense Native Soll Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35' Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.532689, 369.70445) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (360.14795, 250.15957) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Point Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface limits Left Coordinate: (0.1023189, 370.06196) ft Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X (ft) y (ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 412113 SLOPE/IN Analy5is ;; !:) ! t: 1-,r·1 i i. l r: ;...,_ _.,-4 ~ V·',. ,.,,l . , l , ·'• -.:J '., _, Horz Seismic Load: 0 Material I Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil I 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 24331.82 X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 360.15693 239.90718 Point 2 360.15693 250.1598 Point 3 320.34257 249.56173 Point 4 76.861983 350.99278 Point 5 71.583836 352.19544 Point6 0.1023189 370.06196 Point 7 0.1681653 239.98345 Critical Slip Surfaces Number FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 2 2.127 (325.704, 744.497) 495.536 (1.53269, 369.704) (360.157, 250.16) Slices of Slip Surfar:e: 2 Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 2 7.3702845 364.8101 -4166.921 273.25277 191.33365 200 2 2 19.045475 355.31605 -3764.5686 911.52386 638.25588 200 3 2 30.720665 346.39085 -3397.782 1488.7533 1042.4363 200 4 2 42.395855 337.9969 -3064.1643 2015.6757 1411.3913 200 5 2 54.07105 330.1019 -2761.6263 2501.0942 1751.285 200 6 2 65.746245 322.67785 -2488.5083 2952.2598 2067.1946 200 7 2 74.22291 317.5259 -2305.072 3271.6678 2290.8464 200 8 2 82.751235 312.6582 -2140.2008 3473.4236 2432.1174 200 9 2 94.529745 306.2384 -1931.4109 3666.9022 2567.5926 200 . 10 2 106.30825 300.22365 -1747.9622 3835.2857 2685.4959 200 11 2 118.08675 294.59765 -1588.7063 3978. 7422 2785.9453 200 12 2 129.86525 289.3459 -1452.8323 4095.5363 2868.4256 200 13 2 141.6438 284.45565 -1339.4807 4186.8131 2931.6381 200 14 2 153.42235 279.9155 -1248.0199 4247.1522 2973.888 200 15 2 165.20085 275.7152 -1177.6934 4274.3796 2992.9528 200 16 2 176.97935 271.8457 -1128.0506 4264.5481 2986.0687 200 17 2 188.75785 268.29895 -1098.5729 4213.5624 2950.3682 200 4'2113 SLOPEM' Analy.:;is 18 2 200.53635 265.06775 -1088.7754 4117.2861 2882.9548 200 19 2 212.31485 262.1458 -1098.2199 3971.3775 2780.7885 200 20 2 224.09335 259.5275 -1126.6999 3772.2303 2641.3441 200 21 2 235.6301 257.2496 0 3523.2193 2466.9847 200 22 2 246.9251 255.29615 0 3225.3807 2258.4359 200 23 2 258.2201 253.6103 0 2873.9907 2012.3899 200 24 2 269.5151 252.18935 0 2470.2858 1729.7128 200 25 2 280.8101 251.031 0 2016.5514 1412.0045 200 26 2 292.1051 250.1334 0 1516.9088 1062.151 200 27 2 303.4001 249.4951 0 976.25692 683.58245 200 28 2 314.6951 249.1151 0 400.81326 280.65246 200 29 2 326.9783 249.0067 0 112.15763 78.533619 200 30 2 340.24975 249.2187 0 101.90417 71.354068 200 31 2 353.5212 249.7867 0 45.720042 32.013518 200 ·'·"-___ ...,., __ ....... 440 430 420 410 400 390 380 370 360 C 350 a ~ 340 > (I) w 330 320 310 300 290 2BO 270 260 250 240 0 250 PSF Surcharge 20 Foot Structure Setback from Top of Natural Slope ,_______!_. /Rockery ------------------------- Dense Nativ:·s~ii'·----------- -------------------------- .1 919 ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue Static Condition April 2, 2013 By HTW 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 29C 300 310 220 330 340 35C 360 Distance 4/2113 SLOPE/W Analy.:;is SLOPE/W Analysis Report ge ~erated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .11. Copyright© 1991-2008 GEO-SLOPE lnternationa I Ltd. rile 1nformation Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 13 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 4/2/2013 Time: 9:52:0SAM File Name: Smithers Ave 3 Foot Rockery, 2 to lSlope Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\2660.01\ Last Solved Date: 4/2/2013 Last Solved Time: 9:52:12 AM Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psi Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pd View: 20 Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No SlipSurface Direction of movement: Left to Right Allow Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant 4/2/13 SLOPE.NV A.naly.5is Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35" Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: O psf Phi:32° Phi-B: 0 ° Rockery Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B; 0' Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.75904, 373.98196) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (70.0334, 355.82029) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (199.82186, 300.29886) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 412113 SLOPE/VV Analy.,is Left Coordinate: ( 0.1023189, 370.06196) ft Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft X (ft) y (ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 Surcharge loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction: Vertical Coordinates X (ft) y (ft) 0.9875556 375.19653 33.881393 375.1053 56.237811 363.67271 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0 Regions Material Points Region 1 Dense Native Soil 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Region 2 Rockery 5,4,10,11,6 Region 3 Select Fill Soil 6, 11, 12, 13, 8,7 Points X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 360.15693 239.90718 Point 2 360.15693 250.1598 Point 3 320.34257 249.56173 Point 4 76.861983 352.06283 Area (ft2 ) 24470.172 20.631255 548.2873 4l2/13 SLOPEJW Analy:;is Point 5 76.861983 350.99278 Point 6 71.791243 351.01674 Point7 43.05417 360.0836 Point 8 I 0.1023129 370.06195 Point9 I o.16s1653 239.98345 Point 10 76.501308 355.15984 Point11 71.596931 355.04006 Point 12 33.684832 373.95884 Point 13 0.1598139 373.98312 Number FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 47 1.919 (344. 793, 737.405) 487.488 (19.8962, 373.969) (317.709, 250.671) Slices of Slip Surface: 47 Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psi) Strength (psi) 1 47 26.79053 368.0333 0 804.08119 502.44569 0 2 47 33.78311 362.0164 -4422.5686 1296.8402 908.05728 200 3 47 38.46778 358.22975 -4262.6735 1418.234 993.05816 200 4 47 49.64599 349.50885 -3900.5536 1661.5246 1163.4121 200 5 47 60.07759 341.7302 -3585.1079 1691.5613 1184.444 200 6 47 67.75715 336.31505 -3372.205 1835.1378 1284.9773 200 7 47 74.04912 332.02515 -3207.0542 2096.607 1468.0601 200 8 47 76.681645 330.26865 -3140.1664 2107.7854 1475.8873 200 9 47 81.966005 326.88215 -3015.0401 2056.8605 1440.2292 200 10 47 92.17405 320.5215 -2784.3522 2276.1413 1593.7713 200 11 47 102.38208 314.50295 -2575.0139 2476.0861 1733.7741 200 12 47 112.59015 308.81205 -2386.145 2658.1533 1861. 259 200 13 47 122.7982 303.43585 -2216.9642 2822.8356 1976.5708 200 14 47 133.0062 298.3628 -2066.5875 2970.0026 2079.6182 200 15 47 143.21425 293.5825 -1934.6017 3098.2169 2169.3949 200 16 47 153.4223 289.0856 -1820.2278 3205.648 2244.6189 200 17 47 163.63035 284.86365 -1722.9572 3289.5796 2303.3884 200 18 47 173.8384 280.90895 -1642.4198 3346.8558 2343.4937 200 19 47 184.04645 277.21465 -1578.209 3373.4737 ' 2362.1317 200 20 47 194.2545 273.77455 -1529.7219 3365.7981 2356.7572 200 21 47 204.4625 270.583 -1496.815 3319.6364 2324.4344 200 22 47 214.67055 267.6349 -1479.1724 3231.6536 2262.8282 200 23 47 224.8786 264.9257 -1476.3077 3098.9358 2169.8982 200 24 47 234.85625 262.5021 0 2924.4144 2047.697 200 25 47 244.6036 260.35035 0 2710.1517 1897.6687 200 26 47 254.35095 258.40655 0 2453.5397 1717.987 200 27 47 264.09825 256.66825 0 2156.6861 1510.1279 200 412113 28 47 273.84555 255.1332 0 1822.9383 1276.4351 200 29 47 283.59285 253.79945 0 1456.4801 1019.8383 200 30 47 293.34015 252.6654 0 1062.3263 743.84889 200 31 47 303.0875 251.7296 0 646.13907 452.43145 200 32 47 312.83485 250.99085 0 213.27082 149.33384 200 C 0 ~ > OJ ill 440 430 420 410 400 390 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 290 2ao 270 260 250 1.323 .- ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue Existing Conditions Seismic Condition 0.2 April 2, 2013 ByHTW 240 L-...J......J...;...J....;..J.~l-.....l......l....C..!....-'1..C...'""-.J.......L.c...J.;;....J......J...C..:L......1.~l-...J.......l.~.!.....CJ:;:,-.Jc;,....L..'-l.-"C.L.-.J....;..J.~l-....l.....;..l.-"-L--.J......J...;..L.-.J o 10 20 30 40 so 60 10 eo so 100 110 120 i3o 140 1so 1so 110 1sa )90 20D 210 220 230 240 2so 2Bc 210 2eo 290 JOO 310 320 330 340 ~so 360 Distance 412/13 SLOPE/W Anal)'SiS SLOPE/W Analysis Re port generated us ingGeoStudio 2007, version 7 .11. Copyright © 1991-2008 GEO-SLOPE lnte rna tiona l Ltd ::::,,, 11~1fo1-,-.,.l:.l'Hn"" -l I r,.;;, ~ ] . 'i i ........ ~ \., i I Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 10 last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 4/2/2013 Time: 9:53:02 AM File Name: Smithers Ave Existing Conditions, Seismic Condition,gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\2660.01\ Last Solved Date: 4/2/2013 Last Solved Time: 9:53:04AM Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t} Units: Seconds Force(F} Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No SI i pSurface Direction of movement: Left to Right Allow Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none} FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant 412113 SLOPE/VY Anal~is Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 j\fi ;,l·c,,, ;::i.1',:; ,·:,it...:! ...... ,,.,..,. - Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35' Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.532689, 369.70445) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (360.14795, 250.15967) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Point Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface limits Left Coordinate: (0.1023189, 370.06196) ft Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft Piezornetric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordlnates X (ft) y (ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 4/2/13 SLDPEM' Analy.;is Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No - Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7 24331.82 X (ft) y (ft) Pointl 360.15693 239.90718 Point 2 360.15693 250.1598 Point 3 320.34257 249.56173 Point 4 76.861983 350.99278 Point 5 71.583836 352.19544 Point 6 0.1023189 370.06196 Point 7 0.1681653 239.98345 Critical Slip Surfaces Number FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 2 1.323 (325. 704, 744.497) 495.536 ( 1.53269, 369. 704) ( 360.157, 250.16) Slices of Slip Surface: 2 Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 2 7.3702845 364.8101 -4166.921 209.65876 146.80464 200 2 2 19.045475 355.31605 -3764.5686 769.10036 538.52987 200 3 2 30.720665 346.39085 -3397.782 1264.1981 885.20107 200 4 2 42.395855 337.9969 -3064.1643 1708.5284 1196.3245 200 5 2 54.07105 330.1019 -2761.6263 2113.627 1479.9775 200 6 2 65.746245 322.67785 -2488.5083 2489.602 1743.2381 200 7 2 74.22291 317.5259 -2305.072 2757.7608 1931.0049 200 8 2 82.751235 312.6582 -2140.2008 2928.2362 2050.3731 200 9 2 94.529745 306.2384 -1931.4109 3098.2924 2169.4477 .200 10 2 106.30825 300.22365 -1747.9622 3258.4932 2281.6215 200 11 2 118.08675 294.59765 -1588.7063 3410.5267 2388.0765 200 12 2 129.86525 289.3459 -1452.8323 3554.5999 2488.9577 200 13 2 141.6438 284.45565 -1339.4807 3689.4246 2583.3629 200 14 2 153.42235 279.9155 -1248.0199 3811.6428 2668.941 200 15 2 165.20085 275.7152 -1177.6934 39161397 2742.1106 200 16 2 176.97935 271.8457 -1128.0506 3995.9183 2797.9721 200 4/2113 17 2 188.75785 268.29895 -1098.5729 4041.9716 2830.219 200 18 2 200.53635 265.06775 -1088.7754 4044.3396 2831.8771 200 19 I 2 212.31485 262.1458 I -1098.2199 3992.2047 2795.3718 I 200 20 2 224.09335 259.5275 I -1126.6999 3875.2694 2713.4929 200 ' 21 2 235.6301 257.2496 0 I 3689.8515 2583.6619 200 22 2 246.9251 255.29615 0 3433.8504 2404.4079 200 23 2 258.2201 253.6103 0 3102.2996 2172.2536 200 24 2 269.5151 252.18935 0 2696.6166 1888.1912 200 25 2 280.8101 251.031 0 2221.9891 1555.8535 200 26 2 292.1051 250.1334 o 1687.211 1181.3979 200 27 2 303.4001 249.4951 0 1103.7947 772.8854 200 28 2 314.6951 249.1151 0 484.90942 339.53723 200 29 2 326.9783 249.0067 0 165.6934 116.01977 200 30 2 340.24975 249.2187 0 134.87051 94.437346 200 31 2 353.5212 249.7867 0 58.895972 41.239404 200 440 430 420 410 400 390 3'0 370 360 C 35C 0 "" ro 340 > Q) [ii 330 320 310 300 290 2'0 270 260 250 240 0 250 PSF Surcharge 20 Foot Structure Setback from Top of Natural Slope ,______!__. /Rockery ···-··············---... Dense Nati::·s~jj"·····-.. -... ·--. ··-... ·-----··--. ---•.. ·- .:1.,.ll.§! ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue Seismic Condition 0.2 April 2, 2013 ByHTW 10 20 30 40 so eo 70 ao 9o 100 110 120 130 140 1so 1so 110 mo 190 ;mo 210 220 230 240 250 2so 210 2so 2so aao 310 :120 330 340 350 360 Distance 4/2/13 SLOPE/W Analy&is SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .11. Copyrighr © 1991-2008 GEO-SLOPE lnterna tiona I Ltd. ·.·; I 2 l "-f ,..,,. ·m"" '·"10,.., ; .J, ,;i '\,_ .. ~, 1Q1. • H' Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 11 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 4/2/2013 Time: 9:50:32AM File Name: Smithers Ave 3 Foot Rockery, 2 to 1 Slope Seismic Condition.gs2 Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\2660.01\ Last Solved Date: 4/2/2013 Last Solved Time: 9:50:34 AM Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: Jbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psi Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings SlOPE/\A/ Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No S1ip$urface Direction of movement: Left to Right Allow Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant 412113 SLOPENv Analysis Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum lterat'1ons: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Dense Native Sol! Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35' Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32' Phi-B: 0' Rockery Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 40' Phi-B: 0' Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.75904, 373.98196) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (70.0334, 355.82029) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (199.82186, 300.29886) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 412113 SLDPENI Analysis \ r1 r,. . ,)· u ·1· •'" ~·,., '! i '0 11 i 'r'" --~~ :r;., ·-t ,;.:~\ .. -~ ... ~,4 . ,;,,.;,l Left Coordinate: (0.1023189, 370.06196) ft Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598) ft X (ft) y (ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction: Vertical Coordinates X (ft) y (ft) 0.9875556 375.19653 33.881393 375.1053 56.237811 363.67271 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Regions Material Points Region 1 Dense Native Soil 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Region 2 Rockery 5,4,10,11,6 Region 3 Select Fill Soil 6, 11, 12, 13,8, 7 Points X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 360.15693 239.90718 Point 2 350.15693 250.1598 Point 3 320.34257 249.56173 Area (ft') 24470.172 20.631255 548.2873 412113 SLOPEJW Analys's Point 4 76.861983 352.06283 Point 5 76.861983 350.99278 Point 6 71.791243 351.01674 Point7 43.05417 I 360.0836 Point 8 0.1023189 370.06196 Point9 0.1681653 239.98345 Point 10 76.501308 355.15984 Point 11 71.596931 355.04006 Point 12 33.684832 373.95884 Point13 0.1598139 373.98312 Critical Slip Siufaces Number FOS Center (ft) Radius {ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 47 1.229 (344.793, 737.405) 487.488 (19.8962, 373.969) (317.709, 250.671) Slices of Slip Surface: 47 Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength ( psf) Strength (psf) 1 47 26.79053 368.0333 0 707.67939 442.20716 0 2 47 33.78311 362.0164 -4422.5686 1099.2761 769.72139 200 3 47 38.46778 358.22975 -4262.6735 1203.0057 842.35368 200 4 47 49.64599 349.50885 -3900.5536 1406.8481 985.08563 200 5 47 60.07759 341.7302 -3585.1079 1414.9544 990.76177 200 6 47 67.75715 336.31505 -3372.205 1531.6029 1072.4399 200 7 47 74.04912 332.02515 -3207.0542 1750.8746 1225.9756 200 8 47 76.681645 330.26865 -3140.1664 1758.4098 1231.2518 200 9 47 81.966005 326.88215 -3015.0401 1712.0016 1198.7564 200 10 47 92.17405 320.5215 -2784.3522 1898.0411 1329.0227 200 11 47 102.38208 314.50295 -2575.0139 2073.1505 1451.6356 200 12 47 112.59015 308.81205 -2386.145 2240.4078 1568.7504 200 13 47 122.7982 303.43585 -2216.9642 2402.1182 1681.9813 200 14 47 133.0062 298.3628 -2066.5875 2558.838 1791.7177 200 15 47 143.21425 293.5825 -1934.6017 2710.1371 1897.6584 200 16 47 153.4223 289.0856 -1820.2278 2853.8196 1998.266 200 17 47 163.63035 284.86365 -1722.9572 2986.0044 2090.8228 200 18 47 173.8384 280.90895 -1642.4198 3101.268 2171.5313 200 19 47 184.04645 277.21465 -1578.209 3192.3935 2235.338 200 20 47 194.2545 273.77455 -1529.7219 3251.5674 2276.772 200 21 47 204.4625 270.583 -1496.815 3269.9145 2289.6188 200 22 47 214.67055 267.6349 -1479.1724 3239.395 2268.2488 200 23 47 224.8786 264.9257 -1476.3077 3152.9632 2207.7286 200 24 47 234.85625 262.5021 0 3010.2708 2107.8143 200 25 47 244.6036 260.35035 0 2812.7626 1969.5176 200 26 47 254.35095 258.40655 0 2559.3913 1792.1051 200 • 412113 SLOPEJW Anal~is 27 47 264.09825 256.66825 0 2254.0183 1578.2806 200 28 47 273.84555 255.1332 0 1903.1232 1332.5812 200 29 47 283.59285 2s3. 79945 I o 1514.8004 1060.6746 200 30 47 293.34015 252.6654 lo 1098.2371 768.99388 200 31 47 303.0875 251.7296 0 662.26878 463.72559 200 32 47 312.83485 250.99085 0 215.18517 150.67428 200 . " Gcotcchnical Engineering Geology · Environmental Scientists' "''" ,:'\\ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUD °1!: PROPOSED SMITHERS AVENUE . ~"!{ RESIDENTIAL PLAT ., ' 47XX SMITHERS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2660 EXHIBIT 27 PREPARED FOR GEONERCO PROPERTIES, LLC February 25, 2013 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SMITHERS AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PLAT 47XX SMITHERS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 ES-2660 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -136TH Place Northeast, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Ph: 425-284-3300 Fax: 425-449-4711 1-866-336-8710 l Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a princroa/ cause of constructron delays, cost overruns. clarms. and disputes • The following in/ormatron rs provided lo help you manage your flSAs Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique. each geotechnical engineering report is unique. prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -no/even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project exoopt the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely arr an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnlcal Engineering RIIPOl't Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique. proJect-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals. objectives. and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved. its size. and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements. such as access roads, parking lots. and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you. • not prepared for your project. • not prepared for the specific site explored. or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include 1hose that affect: • the function of the proposed structure. as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building. or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse. • elevation. configuration. location. orientation. or weight of the proposed structure. • composition of the design team. or • project ownership. As a general rule. always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes---even minor ones--1md request an assessment of their impact. Geatechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments at which they were not informed. Sdlsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was pertormed. Do not rely an a geatechnical engineer- ing repartwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events. such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events. such as floods. earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurtace conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurtace conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Nat Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final. because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the 111port's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower !hat risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurtace conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geoteclrnical engineering report, bu/preface it with a clearly written letter of transmitlal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conlerence can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to pertorm additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engi~eers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others reccgn~e their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to pertorm a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to pertorm a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have no! yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surtaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for thti express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber ol mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surtaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in-this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant: none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's sllldy were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial · Engineer lor Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be ol genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geolechnical engineer for more information. A5FE JU IUt HUii ti Earll 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whale or In part, tJy any means whatsoever. is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific wn·rren permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extril.ctino wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, ,.md only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element Df a oeotecnnlca/ engineering report. Any other firm, ind!Vidua/, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045 OM February 25, 2013 ES-2660 Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Dear Mr. Waltier: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Ccotechnlcal Engineering • Construction Monitoring • tnvironn1ental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat, 47XX Smithers Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055". This study has been prepared to address the feasibility of the proposed development from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed 19 residential lot development is bordered to the west by a steep slope. Based on the conditions observed during our fieldwork, the subject site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of medium dense to very dense glacial till. Groundwater seepage was observed in one test pit at a depth of six to nine feet. Based on the results of our study, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The residential buildings and associated structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil or structural fill. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. This report provides recommendations for critical areas assessment, foundation design, structural fill recommendations, and other geotechnical recommendations. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC 180c, -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Hcllcvuc, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (42c,) 449-4711 TABLE OF CONTENTS ES-2660 PAGE INTRODUCTION . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. ... .. . . .. ... . .. .. . ... ... . . . . . . ... .. . .. . . .. ... ... 1 General ............ ........................................................ ...... 1 Project Description .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. 2 Surface............................................................................ 2 Slope Reconnaissance....................................................... 2 Subsurface....................................................................... 3 Groundwater ..................................................................... 3 CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 3 Site and Construction Plans ......................................................... 3 Landslide Hazard ................................................................ 4 Steep Slopes ........................................................................ 4 Erosion Hazard .................................................................... 4 Analysis of Proposal..................................................................... 5 Critical Areas Functions and Values........................... 5 Minimum Critical Area Buffer and Setback................................. 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............ ........ ... ......... ... ... 6 General....................................................................... .. . .. . 6 Site Preparation and Earthwork............................................ 6 Erosion Control................................................................... 6 In-Situ Soils .......................................................................... 6 Structural Fill....................................................................... 7 Foundations...................................................................... 7 Seismic Considerations......................... . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8 Slab-on-Grade Floors.......................................................... 8 Retaining Walls ............................... ,.................................. 8 Drainage ............................................................................ 9 Preliminary Infiltration Evaluation ................................. 9 Utility Trench Backfill.......................................................... 9 Pavement Sections............................................................. 1 O LIMITATIONS.............................................................................. 10 Additional Services ............................................................ 10 Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAPHICS PLATE 1 PLATE 2 PLATE 3 PLATE4 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B TABLE OF CONTENTS Contim.1ed ES-2660 VICINITY MAP TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Sieve Analysis Results Earth Solutions NW, LLC General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SMITHERS AVE RESIDENTIAL PLAT 47XX SMITHERS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 ES-2660 INTRODUCTION This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed 19 lot residential development on Smithers Avenue South, south of South 4yth Street in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this study was to prepare geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. To complete the scope of services detailed in our proposal PES-2660 dated January 16, 2013, we performed the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of soil and groundwater conditions by way of test pits excavated on the accessible areas of the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during field exploration; • Engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and/or resources were reviewed as part of our report preparation; • Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle; • Preliminary Site Plans Provided by the Client; • The King County online GIS property research database; • The City of Renton online GIS property research database, and; • City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations (4-3-050J). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 Project Description ES-2660 Page 2 Based on the plans provided to us, the site will be developed with 19 single family residential lots with associated roadways and stormwater facilities. Based on the City of Renton GIS data, sensitive slopes are located at the south and west portions of the site, with a protected slope at the west portion of the site. Grading activities will include cuts and fills to establish the planned building lots and access roadway alignments. Site improvements will also include underground utility installations and construction of stormwater detention facilities. Based on the preliminary site plans provided to us, we estimate cuts and fills to establish finish grades throughout the site will be on the order of two to eight feet on average. Engineered rockeries or modular block walls may also be utilized as part of the overall grading plan. A storm detention vault facility is planned to be constructed at the south end of Smithers Avenue South as part of the proposed development. The proposed residential structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate wall loads on the order of 2 kips per linear foot and slab-on-grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. Surface The subject site is located south of South 4y!h Street on Smithers Avenue South in Renton, Washington, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site is approximately square in shape and consists of mostly undeveloped wooded land, with a paved temporary cul-de-sac at the north end of the site. A wetland tract is mapped at the east and southeast portions of the site. The topography of the site is slightly undulating with an overall ascending slope to the east, with a steep descending slope at the west side of the site. The Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the approximate limits of the property and approximate existing topography. Slooe Reconnaissance During our fieldwork, we performed a visual slope reconnaissance across portions of the steep slope areas of the site. The main focus of our reconnaissance was to identify signs of instability or erosion hazards along the site slopes. The typical instability indicators include such features as; head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills. During the slope reconnaissance, no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed. In general, based on the slope reconnaissance, stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 Subsurface ES-2660 Page 3 As part of the subsurface exploration, eight test pits were excavated on accessible portions of the site for purpose of assessing the soil conditions. Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Topsoil was encountered to an average approximate depth of two to four inches. Underlying the topsoil, medium dense brown silty sand with gravel was observed, transitioning to a dense to very dense brown and/or gray silty sand with gravel at an average depth of two to six feet. The referenced geologic map of the area identifies glacial till (Qgt) across the east portion of the site with recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits (Qit) of sand and gravel to the east side of the property and possible undifferentiated deposits (Qu) to the north of the site. The soil conditions observed at our test sites generally correlate with glacial till (Qgt). Soil terraces were observed down the steep slope at the west side of the site which may correlate to the recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits, however, the proposed development will not extend to those locations. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was encountered during our fieldwork at the test pit at the northeast portion of the site (TP-1). The seepage was observed at six to nine feet and likely represents perched groundwater. The presence of groundwater seepage should be expected in deeper site excavations such as deeper foundation and utility trench excavations. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater elevations and flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT As part of this geotechnical engineering study and critical areas report, the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations (4-3-050J) were reviewed. Per the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are addressed. Site and Construction Plans The attached Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the proposed building footprint area and local site topography. Construction of a 19 residential lot development and associated improvements is planned. The building pad elevations will vary according to existing grades. We anticipate the maximum cuts for the proposed development will be on the order of six to eight feet, or to the extent required to maintain the minimum allowable setback from the top of the slope. The overall stability of the steep slope areas can be characterized as good. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 Landslide Hazard ES-2660 Page 4 With respect to landslide hazard areas, Part 4-3-050J-1 b of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations defines landslide hazard areas as the following: • Low Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes less than 15 percent. • Medium Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. • High Landslide Hazards: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent and areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. • Very High Landslide Hazards: Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. The natural slope at the west portion of the site exhibits high landslide hazard characteristics, as demonstrated by the City of Renton GIS data, based on a greater than 40% slope condition. However, it is generally underlain by g lacia I till, and the overall stability of the slope can be characterized as good. As previously described in the Slope Reconnaissance section of this study, typical indicators of instability such as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills were not observed. Steep Slopes With respect to steep slope critical areas, the referenced section of the Renton Code defines steep slopes as follows: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Based on our observations and review of the referenced topographic survey, sensitive slopes are present along the western and southern portions of the property, and protected slopes are present along the western portion of the property. The overall stability of the slope areas can be characterized as good. Erosion Hazard With respect to erosion hazard areas, the referenced section of the Renton Code defines erosion hazards as follows: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 ES-2660 Page 5 • low Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than 15 percent. • High Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than 15 percent. The sloped areas along the western margins of the site would be severely susceptible to erosion, in our opinion. However, the sloped areas of the property will remain largely unaltered and vegetated. In our opinion, the planned development will not increase the erosion hazard at the site, provided appropriate Best Management Practices are implemented during the earthwork and development activities. General guidelines for erosion control are provided in the Sile Preparation and Earthwork section of this study. Analysis of Proposal The planned development activity will involve grading and construction of a 19 residential lot development with associated improvements adjacent to the steep slope area to the west. The proposed development activity will include 9 single family residences to be located near the top of steep slope areas located along the western portion of the property. As previously described, the slopes exhibit good stability, and the planned development activity will not involve alterations to the areas of 40 percent slope. The proposed development activity is feasible in our opinion, and will not decrease stability of the site or surrounding properties. The project designs must comply with the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations. Critical Areas Functions and Values The geologic hazard critical areas associated with the subject property include potential landslide, steep slopes and potential erosion. In our opinion, the impacts to the function and value of the geologic hazard critical areas will be minimal. The scale of the project relative to the critical area is such that negative impacts to the function and value of the landslide and steep slope area will be negligible, in our opinion. Minimum Critical Area Buffer and Setback In our opinion, the proposed grading and development activity can be completed as currently planned without adversely impacting the slope area. Sections 4-3-050J5 and 4-3-050J6 specify the requirements for development on sites which contain protected and sensitive slopes. The code requires erosion control measures, slope stabilization, and buffer zones. The proposed nine residential structures to be located adjacent to the steep slope area will be setback at least 20 feet from the top of the slope. Given the overall stable characteristics of the slope area, it is our opinion that the proposed 20 foot setback of the residential structures is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General ES-2660 Page 6 Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, construction of the proposed residential development at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include the steep slope buffer, foundation support, structural fill placement, and the suitability of the on-site soils for use as structural fill. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on undisturbed competent native soil or structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock, as necessary. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Geonerco Properties, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Given the existing grades, grading for the new development will be moderate. Cuts and fills of up to eight feet are anticipated. Once the existing vegetation and topsoil has been cleared, grading operations can commence. Where possible the existing asphalt can be left in place to act as a working surface. Erosion Control Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least one foot of quarry spalls can be considered in order to minimize off-site soil tracking and to provide a temporary road surface. Temporary slopes and stockpiles should be covered when not in use. Surface water should not be allowed to flow down the face of any natural or cut slope, nor should water be allowed to pond near the top of any slope. Proper care and measures should be taken to ensure that development does not adversely affect the natural slope areas. Erosion control measures should conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and city of Renton standards. In-Situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the test pit locations are generally suitable for use as structural fill. However, successful use of the on-site soils will largely be dictated by the moisture content of the soils at the time of placement and compaction. The site soils were generally in a moist condition at the time of the exploration (February 2013). Soils encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 ES-2660 Page 7 Based on the conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the site soils have a moderate to high sensitivity to moisture. During periods of dry weather, the on-site soils should generally be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the moisture content is at or near the optimum level at the time of placement. Successful placement and compaction of the on-site soils during periods of extended precipitation will be difficult. If the on-site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of five percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557). Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed buildings can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soil or structural fill. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are observed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with granular structural fill or crushed rock may be necessary. Provided the building will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of the new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity • Passive earth pressure • Coefficient offriction 3,000 psf 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 Seismic Considerations ES-2660 Page 8 The 2006 International Building Code (IBC) specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the site, Site Class C from Table 1613.5.2 should be used for design. In our opinion, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. The soil relative density and the lack of an established shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this opinion. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or at least 12 inches of structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of five percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarters inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If used, the vapor barrier should consist of a material specifically designed to function as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. Retaining Walls If retaining walls will be utilized, they should be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. For design, the following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition) • At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) • Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) • Passive earth pressure • Coefficient of friction 35 pcf 55 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution) 300 pcf 0.40 Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and should be connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3 of this report. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 Drainage ES-2660 Page 9 Groundwater seepage was observed at one test pit location at a depth of six to nine feet below grade during our fieldwork (February 2013). Perched groundwater seepage should be expected in site or utility excavations. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction will likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 4 of this report. Preliminary Infiltration Evaluation As part of this geotechnical engineering study, the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) was reviewed. The City of Renton recognizes an amended version of the 2009 KCSWDM as the governing code. At test pit TP-1, near the proposed residential lots 17, 18 and 19, poorly graded sand was observed to a depth of five feet where an increasing amount of gravel and silt was observed, as detailed in Appendices A and B of this report. In our opinion, for preliminary design purposes, an infiltration rate of four inches per hour may be achievable at these locations. ESNW can perform in-situ infiltration analyses upon request if infiltration will be pursued. Based on the soils observed throughout the remainder of the site, as discussed in the Subsurface section of this report, adequate infiltration will not be achievable. Dispersion methods per section C.2.4 of the KCSWDM may be utilized where slopes less than 15 percent are present. Utility Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. In general, the soils observed at the test pit locations should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable requirements of the city of Renton. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC February 25, 2013 Pavement Sections ES-2660 Page 10 The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas containing unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions may require remedial measures such as overexcavation and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. Cement treatment of the subgrade soil can also be considered for stabilizing pavement subgrade areas. Heavier truck-traffic areas generally require thicker pavement sections depending on site usage, pavement life expectancy, and site traffic. For preliminary design purposes, the following pavement sections for heavy traffic areas can be considered: • Three inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Three inches of HMA placed over four and one-half inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic, the following sections can be considered: • Two inches of HMA placed over four inches of CRB, or; • Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of ATB. The HMA, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC . ~-•-v? 1,/l)t 5't• 1 i . . . . ~,is: '"X~ ')f i . ' _}!.....,.~ ..... JII l I,;"-, ,- ~::.-.' t ,:. lfflt J-1~· ·--: Reference: King County, Washington Map 686 NORTH • ~ '' ~~ ,L" ;;~,; :'" Solutions NWLLc ' "Engineering. Construction Monitoring land Environmental Sctences ·: "., By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Vicinity Map Smithers Avenue South Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 02/15/2013 Proj. No. 2660 Checked HTW Date Feb. 2013 Plate 0 50 100 200 l"=1 00' -L...J-u Scale in Fe~t LEGEND TP-1-f-Approximate Location of ESNW Tes: Pit, ProJ. No ES-2660, Feb. 2013 [~:I Sub1ectS1te Proposed Lot Number Do Existing Building ' NOit lh• g,,.,h,<:>>hO'Wn on th~ plete ""'m,.11 l<endod forde>,gn Drwn. By p,rp,,.,a-prec,..«:ele rr11e,1:;u.,ment:i OU:or~ lol~'~""'lh• GLS ,ppmrn,elele,liocal<>ns·elei"'lotl·•""P<O<nale!O<lllionoor "~"'g ,ndlorprq,0>00 ~1€ r,oturu n-.. 11 r,,,~~10<1 l~•~Olod Checked By ~ ~rg,~ o.,.; on dElla p""10ed by :t~ cienl ,: the Urn o! our HTW ,t,dy ~S/1Wamno1De"',pon~~ for,ub,equ.ot<lo,yr, cllO'll.. ....=~~ ,rnt,rpret,honoflhed,t.obyotller, Date NOTI' Thi, plate may o,nt.n ..-.os or color ES\IW e,,inot D• rqlD'ISilielor,nysu~sequentr,1sioter,r,t.,1,:,nollne~fnrmat,:,e re,u!~g from Ola<\ & whee reprcdudons of th;s ~late 0211 ij/201 J ProJ No 2660 Plate ' I I .. 18" Min. ~1 0 000000000 O" o -0 o dJ o 0 0 0000 0 oo Q o()o ;oo o Q oo0o0o (j Q0 ° o O o o O o o O oo Qooo oO o()o Ooo 0 o 0 °00 0 o o 00 o A <> Q o oc() 0 0 0 ., "' V o oo O O O O O O ~ ; 0 o O g O o O o o'°' 0 0 0 o"oooOOoOO 0 0 0 0 0 Oo oQ O o Q O 0 o 0 0 0 00Q,og oc 0°0 0 oo o 00 Q 0 ooO 0 0 0 o o O 0 0 oo o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 oo 0 o O oO O o O CJ 0 o O 0 o O 0 o: oo o B 0-oooooocooo: 0 ooQO 00000 ooo 0 0 ooo 0 : 0 Q O Oc, 0 Q 0 ooa O O O O 0 o °<>oQ Og <:> oQ o o O (l._ 0 O o c,Oo~ c,O O o O 0o O O Q c9 'bQ 8 0 0 Oo 0 o O o°.:. Q NOTES: • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. Structural Fill • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOTTO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: ooo 0 o o 0 0 Free Draining Structural Backfill 0 0 ............. ............ ·-::..-::..-::..-::.. 1 inch Drain Rock .......... ,I'. • ,' .,,,, "' ' · h Solutions NWLLc · 'hnical Engmeenng, Construction Momtonng ' ' and Environmental Sciences 1:1 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Smithers Avenue South Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 02/19/2013 Proj No. 2660 [ __ Checked HTW Date Feb. 2013 Plate 3 Slope ~ -t 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of ............ .............. ,l'•o"•,1'•.-•,I' ............. ,l'•,I'• ........ .............. 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. 1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT OT SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • a j~ ~ - · tJ;h Solutions NWLLc 1 hrncil Engineering. Construction Momtormg : ~ and Environmental Setences '' # ,.~ FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Smithers Avenue South Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 0211912013 Proj No. 2660 Checked HTW Date Feb. 2013 Plate 4 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ES-2660 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating eight test pits at the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface explorations were completed in February 2013. The test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of 12 feet below existing grades. Logs of the test pits advanced by ESNW are presented in Appendix A. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions NWLLc SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50%, OF MATERIAL lS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL !S SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS {LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FlNES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MORE THAN 50% FINES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMOUNT OF FINES) UQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND - SILT MIXTIJRES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANOS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAVEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS ANO VERY FINE SANOS, ROCK FLOUR, SIL TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SIL TS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SIL TS AND ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICllY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOPMCEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT H@r!)our Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development_____ ____ PROJECT NUMBER 2660 ------- PROJECT LOCATION Renton. Washinaton --- DATE STARTED 218113 ----·-COMPLETED -218/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE - EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD -------------AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -------- LOGGED BY HTW ___ ----CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION -----·- NOTES Depth of T-2Jl'l2il_& Sod 3"-4" AFTER EXCAVATION --.. --... w CL u ~ii, r: ffi c,; 'i:'-" w"' TESTS u CL 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-__J:. (/) ;:; __J 0 CL::, :.z ::, '-" <( (/) 0 Brown poorly graded SAND, medium dense, moist f-- f-- SP f--MC= 21.20% -increasing medium to coarse sand f---becomes gray, dense, moist to wet ,---L MC= 9.70% ' -'-- ,_o Becomes brown SAND and GRAVEL with silt, dense, moist ,. - SP- SM ---becomes very dense, wet -MC= 9.30% ,_o Becomes brown graY'"silty sAND with gravel and C.Obb"ies;··very dense, wet --SM ._1Q__ MC" 19.50% 10.a Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet beloWexisting grade. ----Groundwater seepage encountere-fat 6.0 feet during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 10.0 feet. '" I m ~ • Eartti Solutions NW 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-264-3300 CLIENT Hart:iour Homes ______________ _ TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Smi~hers Avenue South Developmen~t _______ _ PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED _,2~/8~/~13~---COMPLETED _2~/6~/1~3 ___ _ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavatino GROUND ELEVATION ------- GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD ---------------------AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -='--------------- AT END OF EXCAVATION =------------------LOGGED BY _ti1}'\I ______ _ CHECKED BY _,H~TW~---· NOTES ~th _pf.Joplioil_& Sod 3"-4" AFTER EXCAVATION UJ a. :,: r: ffi fug LlJ"' TESTS __,:, Cl a.:::, :.z <( 11) 0 . MC=B.40% MC= 11.10% MC= 18.80% ui 0 11) ::i SM SM ~- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist -------------------Becomes gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -becomes very dense . .. L. L_ 10,Q ···----·-·iesfpit tei-riiinated at 1 o.o feet below existing gl"Bde:-l'fO groundwater encountered during· -- excavation. Bottom of test pit at 1 o.o feet. w z w ~L_ _ _J_ __ _L _______ .J_._J.._..L __________________________________ _J ~ " m ~ • Earth Solutions NW 1605 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Harbour H~m~s PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue So_ut!') Development _________ _ PROJECT NUMBER 2660 ------~~===========~-P .. R .. O=J-=EC=T~---~5?~~~TION Renton, Washington ===-~---_-__ DATE STARTED ~2~/~8/~1~3 ___ _ COMPLETED _ 2]8/_1'-"3.__ __ _ GROUND ELEVATION _______ TESTPITSIZE __ _ -···········- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR ,_,N,,_W,.,,,Ec,XC,cae,vceae:ti!!ng..__ _______ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD -----------------------_____ _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION ------------------ LOGGED BY ~H~TW=----- NDTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3"-4" CHECKED BY _H,_._TW._,.~-----AT END OF EXCAVATION __::::_ ___ ---------------- AFTER EXCAVATION ------- w a. :,: I= ffi c,i ~ t= w"' 0 :,: (!) TESTS a.o w-..J:; c,i ~-' D a.::, :j ::.z (!) .,: MATERIAL DESCRIPTION "' 0 Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist --MC= 27.00% -becomes dense to very dense, moist to wet . --increasing fine sands SM -becomes gray MC= 19.10% MC;; 16.10% __ L.....L. -9.CJ ~--~---~~---~---~----~~----· ·· --=restpW te·ITTl-lriat9d-0t 9.o-Teet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 9.0 feet. ili <')l_ _ _J_ __ _L ______ _L _ _J_ _ _L _______________________________ _____, ~ ~ ~ m ~ w z w • Earth Solutions NW 1805136th Place NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Harbour Homes --·· PROJCCT NAME _ S_mithers Avenue South Develqpmen,,t ______ _ 1_P:_R:_:O_:__cJ:::ECc:_Tc:_c:_N:_:U:_:M:::B:cE:cR-'---c=2=66=0================~~---PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington - DATE STARTED ~2,,_/8~1~13~---COMPLETED 0 2=1~8/~1~3_______ GROUND ELEVATION ___ ___ __ TEST PIT SIZE ------- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _N~W~=Ex~c=•~v=•t~in~o~-------- EXCAVATION METHOD -------------------- GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -='------------- AT END OF EXCAVATION ~--------------- AFTER EXCAVATION --- LOGGED BY ~H~TW=------ NOTES ~th of Topsoil & Sod 3"-4" CHECKED BY _ _trryv ---- TESTS 0 MC= 12.20% MC= 9.40% -MC= 9_60% ui cj ui ::i SM MATERIAL OESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist ~becomes dense to very dense -becomes gray, very dense 12.0 ___ , -------------·-~~~~~~-~~--~~--~~---~~~~--- Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. ~'----'-----'---------'----'-----'---------------------------------------' .. l= I ru ~ • Earth Solutions NW 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT __ lj_~rbour Hom~.s ________ _ TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development 1_P:_:R::0::J::E::C::T:_:N .. U::M:::=B::E::R-==2=66=0=================~P:.:R .. O-_J::::ECT LOc;_A_TI_O_N --'R=e=n=to=n'=, =W"'a=s=hi=ng,,,t=on"--,c~==~~=--~=~ DATE STARTED _2J8/__1~3~---COMPLETED _?,~181~1~3~---GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE ____ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _ NW ~xcavating ______ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD -------·--------------AT TIME OF EXCAVATION_,--__ -------------- LOGGED BY ~H~1W=------ NOTES D_~Qth ~f "'fo.12~_9\I ~J)od 5" w (L :c ~ ffi fug wm TESTS --' ::;; D (L::, ~z U) 0 . . MC= 16.10% MC= 11.10% MC =8.00% CHECKED BY _,H_,_1W'-'-'-----AT END OF EXCAVATION ---·------------__ AFTER EXCAVATION -. .. -·--- c,; !2 () :c (') a.o uj ~_, ::, (') MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist SM 2.0 SM ----L --a_o --Test pit terminated-at8.o-feet beiow existing grade. No groundwater encountered durinQ ···-- excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. ~L.--'-----'--------'----'----'---------------------------------~ ~ I m ~ w • Eartt, Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South_ Oevet.QQ!!lent_ _________ _ ~p~'.R:0:"J"E:'C:'.T'."N"U .. M~B~E:'.R'...c2~66~0~===··~-~~.•~========~--PR~_J_E~T LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED ,c21"'8c,11.:,3 ___ _ COMPLETED 218113_ GROUND ELEVATION ~ ..... ---TEST PIT SIZE ____ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavatin_g _____________ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _____ _ -----------ATTIMEOFEXCAVATION --------. LOGGED BY ~Hc.,TW,_,_, ________ _ NOTES DepJl:J.of Top,;.oil & Sod 6" w 0. :,: tffi t£ w<D TESTS w-...,:;; Cl O.::, :;; z <( (J) 0 -MC= 28.90% - - MC= 29.00% - . MC= 15.00% - CHECKED BY _.H.,_lW=----AT END OF EXCAVATION ~------~·····----- AFTER EXCAVATION (.) o:i I'-' <..i 0. 0 0 ~..., ::, '-' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown sandy SILT, medium stiff, wet ML -increasing fine sands 4.0 -intermittent gray ---~eCO-mes b_ro_w_n-,-.-n~d-y~S~IL~T~.-.~.ff~.-m-o·iSTto wet ML -increasing medium sands -becomes hard, moist •• Q 7CC~~~-~~-~~~----------------·-· --.. ---T-e"SfPit terrT1inated'ad)-.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered ·during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9 .0 feet. ~ OL__...L. __ _l_ _______ .,___..L._.J.... __________________________________ ~ • • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT _ Harbour Homes ·······-···----PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Develo~ment PROJECT NUMBER __ 266.0 -PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington --· ··--""'" --·---"" """" -····-------· - DATE STARTED 2/8113 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE ---------·------------ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: - EXCAVATION METHOD -----·-ATTIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY _HTW _____ CHECKED BY HTW ___ AT END OF EXCAVATION -------------· -------·· NOTES Deoth of Toosoil & Sod 3"-4" ·----AFTER EXCAVATION - w a. 0 I ~ffi u; :c Cl ~-w"' 0 a."' TESTS "-o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w--':. u; ~-' 0 a. ::, :;; ~z Cl 0 Brown silty SAND, medium dense to dense, moist to wet SM 2.5 -increasing fines Brown Sandy SILT, stiff, moist ------··- MC=30.70% ML 5 ____ ,, ___ -intermittent gray 5.5 _,,. o,m, -,-• •--~----· Becomes brown gray sandy SILT, hard, wet MC= 27.80% ML r -becomes very dense _1Q_ - g.o_ -becomes gray --MC= 31.20% ~--· ---·----------- Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feel. - ' ' • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 1805136th Place N.E., Suite201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT tiarbour Homes ----PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Develo~ment --- PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Ren!~n_: Washington _,, .. --··· -----··· DATE ST ART ED 2/8/13 COMPLETED .. 2/8/13 -------· GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE --- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _ _!l(__W _Excavatinq GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD --•. AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION ---------------- NOTES DeQth ofTopsoil & Sod _2"-3.'..'. AFTER EXCAVATION -- L1J a. !',! J: i': ffi u; te-L1J "' cj J: '-' TESTS a.a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-...J:; u; 12 ...J D a.::, ::i :liZ '-' en 0 Brown silty SAND, medium dense to dense, moist ,-. SM -increasing fines ,-. 2.5 --·---~-"· ··-----·· Brown sandy SILT, stiff to very stiff, wet ,-MC= 37.70% " .-L ML -trace gravel MC=33.20% -intermittent gray -becomes hard --8.9_ -- Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist SM 19_ MC= 11.40% 11.0 Test pit terminated at 1 {(fteet below existing grade. No groundWclter encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. • t I ' ~ APPENDIXB LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ES-2660 Earth Solutions NW, LLC • • , .. • Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 . Telephone: 425-284,3300 CLIENT Geonerco ProQerties WA1 LLC PROJECT NAME Smithers Ave PROJECT NUMBER ES-2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton U.S. SIEVE OPENING JN INCHES t U.S. SIE;VE; NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 i,; 1 3/4 1123/8 3 6 8 1416 20 30 -40 50 60 100140 200 100 I '\ I I I I ' I I ' ""· 95 - \ " 90 -~ - 85 ---·-·--~ 80 -. . -.... '--, ' 75 70 \ ~ 65 c:, 60 .. ~ \ ~ 55 O'. UJ 50 z \ ;;: I-45 --C--z \ UJ u 40 O'. \ UJ ll. 35 -' 30 25 20 15 10 °' 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND I SILT OR CLAY I coarse fine I coarse medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc Cu - 0 TP-1 3.0ft. Brown poorly graded SAND, SP 0.89 1.82 0 TP-4 6.0ft. Gray silty SAND with gravel, SM 6 TP-6 5.0ft. Brown SILT, ML * TP-8 6.0ft. Brown SILT, ML Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay 0 TP-1 3.0ft. 4.75 0.279 0.195 0.154 0.0 97.0 3.0 ,0 TP-4 6.0ft. 37.5 0.37 0.075 17.9 52.2 30.0 6 TP-6 5.0ft. 4.75 0.0 9.9 90.1 * TP-8 6.0ft. 4.75 0.0 8.5 91.5 • EMAIL ONLY REPORT DISTRIBUTION ES-2660 Geonerco Pro~erties, LLC 1441 North 34 Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier ~arth Solutions NW, LLC i 1/20i13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Co nt Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:32° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Model: (None) Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 ·Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.24453, 353) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (85.73941, 353.24121) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (91.40842, 351.25705) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250} ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 file:///C :/Userslhenrv.wia hVDocurnents/S!ooeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrest vault, seismic can di ti on.html 215 11130/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated usingGeoStudio 2007, version 7.21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. ,,.. ~.:'.~ ·,-::c ·/;_ . c,., ,.,. ,._ Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 18 last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 2:11:32 PM File Name: Vue crest Vault, Seismic Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Use rs\henry.wri ght\Docume nts\SlopeW\ Vue crest Estates\ last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 last Solved Time: 2:11:36 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View:2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line . Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slfp Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crac.k Option: (none) FOS Distribution fi leJ//C JUsers/hercy.wrig ht/Docurnents/S!opeWNuecrest Estates,\o..recrest wu!t, seismic condition.htni 1/5 360 350 ··- 340 330 r-· 320 310 300 C 290 0 :;::; ro > (1) w 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 Dense Native Soil 1.172 .-- ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed (Vault Location), Seismic Condition November 30, 2013 ByHTW 150 I I I I I I I I I I l I I I O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140150160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 11130/13 S!ope Stability 8 92 129.485 309.7677 -5692.5149 1780.398: 1246.6485 200 9 92 137.1492:, 304.95395 -55173403 1910.1653 1337.5122 200 10 9.2 144.81275 300.3851 -5357.324 2037.5052 . 1426.6765 200 11 92 152.47625 296.0512 -5212.058 2164.0415 1515.2781 200 12 92 160.13975 291.9433 I -5080.8752 2290.5879 1603.8869 200 13 92 167.80325 288.05345 -4963.3424 2416.7305 1692.2129 200 14 92 175.1958 284.4974 -4843.0998 2537.0496 1776.4612 200 15 92 182.31745 281.255 -4719.0994 2648.9811 1854.8365 200 16 92 \ 189.43915 278.1843 -4605.7212 2753.8242 1928.2485 200 17 92 196.9239 275.1416 I -4497. 9631 2838.6044 1987.6122 200 18 92 204.77165 272.14 -4396.9862 2894.6756 2026.8737 200 19 92 212.6194 269.33155 -4307.9481 2921.4225 2045.6021 200 20 92 220.46715 266.7118 -4230.6272 2911.0655 2038.35 200 21 92 228.3149 264.27675 -4164.8383 2856.817 2000.3648 200 22 92 236.16265 261.02275 -4110.4457 2753.0724 1927.7221 200 23 92 244.0104 259.9466 -4067.1255 2596.5816 1818.146 200 24 92 251.85815 258.04535 -4034.6139 2387.1486 1671.4995 200 25 92 259.7059 256.3163 -4012.9663 2127,3361 1489.5768 200 26 92 267.55365 254.75715 -4001.9431 1822.3894 1276.0508 200 27 92 275.4014 253.3658 -4001.2569 1480.2665 · 1036.4937 200 28 92 283.24915 252.1404 -4011.0822 1109.9513 777.19628 200 29 92 291.0969 251.0794 -4031.0528 720.7846 504.69881 200 30 92 298.9447 250.18145 -4061.1426 321.46435 225.09176 200 31 92 304.18915 249.6538 -4072.1931 53.629716 37.551931 200 file:1//C JUsers/henry.'M'ig htiDocurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vJeCrest e:isting, seisITTc condition..htm! 414 11/30/13 I X (ft) I y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 111.63495 I 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 _ _i "-·, .,,. -~-' -·· _, Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No ".'··, .,_, "" / :" Region 1 Point 1 Point 2 Point3 Point4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7 Point8 Point9 Material Points Dense Native Soil 8,5,4,6,9, 1,2,3 X (ft) y (ft) 400 250 400 150 0 150 95 350 55 360 193 305 304 250 0 370 307.86636 248.3727 -j .... ·";'..; ':"; I(.•;,,,. ·• , .. , ' Sl c:pe Sta8i I tty Area ( ft 2 ) 61110.399 Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry ( ft) Exit (ft) 1 92 1.184 ( 338.979, 634.837) 386.754 (70.9609, 356.01) (305.51, 249.535) - Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress ( psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 74.96743 352.2664 -7454.1094 122.39315 85.700606 200 2 92 82.980455 344.98445 -7130.5836 542.11779 379.59496 200 3 92 90.993485 338.09765 -6831.7057 912.1709 638.70894 200 4 92 98.83175 331.71375 -6561.2966 1176.7376 823.96054 200 5 92 106.49525 325.7956 -6317.2144 1348.1994 944.01936 200 6 92 114.15875 320.17535 -6091.6897 1502.9884 1052.4038 200 7 92 121.82225 314.83735 -5883.7261 1645.7416 1152.3607 200 .. fiiel//C:/Users/henry.wig ht/Docurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vJecrest existing, seismic condition.html 314 11/30/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Opt Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35" Phi-B: 0" Pore Water Pressure Piezornetric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: [O, 370} ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (94.35876, 350.16031) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (100.25406, 347.58742) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (0, 370} ft Right Coordinate: {400, 250} ft fileJf/C:/Users/henrywig ht/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest EstateslvJeCrest Mstirg, sei smlc conditionJ-rtml 2/4 11(30/13 Sloe<> Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE Intern a ti ona I Ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 15 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 2:10:42 PM File Name: Vue crest Existing, Seismic Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Use rs\henry .wri ght\Docume nts\SI ope W\ Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 2:10:44 PM r- ·, Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: !bf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pd View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No SI i p Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fi!eJ//CJUsers/henrv.v.rlo ht/Docurrents/SI opeWNuecrest Estates/v..Jecrest rods ting, seismic conditicn.htrrl 1/4 C 0 :;:; ca > Cl) w 400 390 380 370] 360 350 I·- 340 , ____ 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 ,_ Dense Native Soil 250 240 230 220 ~----------~--~---~------------------~~----~-----~--- 21 o I.:_ 200 190 180 170 160 ~'~& 1.184 .- ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Vault Location), Seismic Condition November 30, 2013 ByHTW -------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------- 150 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I O 1 O 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 11130/13 s:cpe Stability 19 92 196.9239 2; 1015 -4477.2995 3101.0648 71.389 200 20 92 204.77165 271.826 -4377.3251 3086.8376 2161.4269 200 21 92 212.6194 1 259 033s -4289.2657 3043.1204 2130.8159 I 200 22 J 92 I 220.46715 I 255.4291 I -4213.0059 2966.762 2077.3491 200 23 I 92 228.3149 264.00805 -4148.1084 2854.9853 1999.0822 200 24 92 236.16265 261.7671 -4094.s4s1 I 2706.1449 1894.8631 I 200 25 I 92 244.0104 259.703 -4051.8673 2519.1494 1763.9274 200 26 92 I 251.2s81s 257.81285 -4020.1674 2294.2226 1606.4319 I 200 27 I 92 259.7059 256.09405 -3999.1252 2032.8086 1423.3879 t 200 28 92 267.55365 254.5443 I -3988.619 1737.7166 1215.7523 200 29 92 275.4014 253.16155 -3988.4817 1412.6318 989.13543 200 30 92 283.24915 251.944 -3998.7586 1062.3547 743.85875 200 31 92 291.0969 250.89005 -4019.2069 691.90097 484.47428 200 32 92 298.9447 249.9984 -4049.7982 306.60892 214.58988 200 33 92 303.4343 I 249.54115 -4064.7394 83.084988 58.176735 200 34 92 I 304.7673 249.4217 -4058.0532 22.613837 15.834379 200 fi I e:// IC ;JU sers/henrv.wi a hVD ocurrentsiS!oreWNuec rest ::s:S.tes/wecr est vau! t, s tati c condition. r,tm 5'5 11/30/13 Slope Stability Point 2 400 ~ Point 3 0 150 Point4 95 350 j Point 5 193 305 Point 6 304 250 Point 7 0 353 Point 8 307.86636 248.3727 Point 9 85 353.5 Point 10 75 353.5 Point 11 75 355.5 Point 12 69 353 Point 13 69 355.5 Point 14 69 362 Point 15 85 349.5 Point 16 80 349.5 Point 17 80 353.5 Point 18 0 373 Point 19 69 373 Slip Surface FOS Center ( ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 92 1.797 · (338.858, 636.306) 388.384 (69, 362) (305.535, 249. 354) Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 .. 69. 7738. 356.24345 -7617.3187 518.22742 323.82443 0 2 92 72.7738. 353.40615 -7489.4051 534.29375 374.11651 200 3 92 77.5 349.0378 -7293.9671 698.18229 488.8725 200 4 92 82.5 344.5665 -7096.645 863.1477 604.38253 200 5 92 90 338.19575 -6821.5474 1133.6236 793.77177 200 6 92 98.83175 331.0093 -6517.3999 1459.1163 1021.6843 200 7 92 106.49525 325.1355 -6275.9955 1671.4101 1170.334 200 8 92 114.15875 319.556 -6053.047 1865.0631 1305.9312 200 9 92 121.82225 314.2555 -5847.4406 2043.0008 1430.5246 200 10 92 129.48575 309.22045 -5658.3798 2207.4781 1545.6928 200 11 92 137.14925 304.4388 -5485.1781 2359.9502 1652.4549 200 12 92 144.81275 299.89965 -5327.1189 2501.301 1751.4298 200 13 92 152.47625 295.5933 -5183.5151 2631.7681 1842.7839 200 14 92 160.13975 291.5111 -5053.9952 2750.7636 1926.1054 200 15 92 167.80325 287.64515 -4937.8597 2857.5154 2000.8538 200 16 92 175.1958 284.1106 -4819.0218 2947.646 2063.964 200 17 92 182.31745 280.88755 -4696.0616 3020.1084 2114.7026 200 18 92 189.43915 277.835 -4583.842 3076.7616 2154.3716 200 fi!eJ//CAJsers/henrv.lf'l"ria ht/D ocurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Est:ates/wecrest vault, static condition.html 415 11130/13 u·:...,,:--'C ~ ," ,C ·'\ a .;_ l ' ~ : i: Left Coordinate: (O, 353) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft X (ft) y (ft) lo 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 ,_, .. Surcharge (Unit Weight): 71.5 pd Direction: Vertical . X (ft) y (ft) 0 353 0 373 69 373 ;;~;:;c: Horz Seismic Load: 0 tti'Jn~: ' Material Region 1 Select Fill Soil Region 2 Dense Native Soil Region 3 Vault X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 250 Slope Stability Points 14, 13, 11, 10,17,16, 15,9 7, 12, 13, 11, 10, 17, 16, 15,9,4, 5,6,8, 1, 2,3 18,19,14,13,12, 7 fi leJ!/C :/Users/henry.wig htlD ocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Es tates/wecrest vau1 t, static condition. html Area (ft2 ) 76 60341.89 1380 2/5 11130/13 · Slope S1ability FOS Calculation Opti Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1' Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pd Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35 ° Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezornetric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32' Phi-8: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Model: (None) Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range ~'i- f t _.,,, ". ·,.,, "'t~\"' , ~,: " .. '" Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.24453, 353) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (85.73941, 353.24121) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (91.40842, 351.25705) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: ( 400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 fileJ//CJUsers/henry:~.r-ig httDocuments/S!opeWNuecrest Estates./vuecrest 'liault. static condi6on.html 2/5 11130/13 Slope Stabili)' Slope Stability Re port generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GED-SLOPE I nternat:o:ia I Ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 2:09:39 PM File Name: Vue crest Vault, Static Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Users\hen ry.wright\Documents\SI ope W\ Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 2:09:42 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: !bf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D ··-- .::; ~ ·:, _j, ;_ Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid _Drawdown: No Slip Surface · Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file:///C JU sers/henrv.wi a hl/0 ocurnents/SlooeWNuecrest Es tates/vuecr est vaul t, static condition.html 1/S C 0 :;:; (I) > Q) w 400 390 -I 380 1 370 ! 360 350 340 , ... 330 ,_ 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 Dense Native Soil 250 240 230 220 210 ------------~-~-------------------~------------~----~--- 200 190 •- 180 •- 170 ,- 160 1.797 .- ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed (Vault Location), Static Condition November 30, 2013 ByHTW ··-------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------- 150 ,...._....,___.~ ............. __..~.._ ..... __...._.._ ..... __...._..__.. __ ..._..__..~ ..... ------~--~~~--------~~-----~~----~---------'~'"'----~'----------' 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 11/30/13 Slope Stalility 9 92 l 137.14925 3( i395 1-5517. 3403 2323.5652 26.9778 200 10 92 144.81275 300.3851 -5357.324 2463.8522 I J.725.2079 200 11 92 I 152.47625 296.0512 -5212.058 2592.826 I 1815.5163 200 i 12 92 i 160.13975 291.9433 -5080.8752 2710.1086 1897.6385 200 13 1. 92 i 167.80325 288.05345 -4963.3424 2814.7995 I 1970.9438 200 14 92 175.1958 I 224.4974 -4843.0998 2903.0105 2032.7099 200 15 92 182.31745 281.255 -4719.0994 2973.6527 2082.174 200 16 92 189.43915 278.1843 -4605.7212 3028.7405 2120.7469 200 17 92 196.9239 275.1416 -4497.9631 3052.6464 2137.486 200 18 92 I 204.77165 272.14 I -4396. 9862 3039.756 2128.46 200 19 92 212.6194 269.33155 I -4307.9481 2997.8964 2099.1497 200 20 92 220.46715 266.7118 -4230.6272 2924.2866 2047.6075 200 21 92 228.3149 264.27675 -4164.8383 2816.1589 1971.8957 200 22 92 236.16265 262.02275 -4110.4457 2671.5072 1870.6095 200 23 92 244.0104 259.9466 -4067.1255 2489.6105 1743.244 200 24 92 251.85815 258.04535 -4034.6139 2270.3238 1589.6979 200 25 92 259.7059 256.3163 -4012.9663 2014.9641 1410.893 200 26 92 267.55365 254.75715 -4001.9431 1725.9601 1208.5303 200 27 92 275.4014 253.3658 -4001.2569 1407.1141 985.27192 200 28 92 283.24915 252.1404 -4011.0822 1062.4639 743.94526 200 29 92 291.0969 251.0794 -4031.0528 697.15211 488.15117 200 30 92 298.9447 250.18145 -4061.1426 316.2173 221.41773 200 31 92 304.18915 249.6538 -4072.1931 56.876459 39.825326 200 fite:///C;/Users/henry.wrig hVDocurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/v.1ecrest ex'stng, static cond:tion.htm! 414 11130/13 Slope Stability HO X (ft) y (ft) 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 I 1s4.40726 400 183.45035 ,~· '.:l;··rr1 ·1,. l --.f'lca .. ; .. , ,1 , '~ -Ua>.::o Horz Seismic Load: 0 Material Points Area (ft2 ) Region 1 Derise Native Soil 8,5,4,6,9,1,2,3 61110.399 X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 Point 4 95 350 Point 5 55 360 Point 6 193 305 Point 7 304 250 Point 8 0 370 Point 9 307.86636 248.3727 . . Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry ( ft) Exit (ft) 1 92 1.820 (338.979, 634.837) 386.754 (70.9609, 356.01) (305.51, 249.535) . Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress ( psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 74.96743 352.2664 -7454.1094 177.09711 124.00473 200 2 92 82.980455 344.98445 -7130.5836 658.49769 461.08504 200 3 92 90.993485 338.09765 -6831.7057 1095.398 767.00592 200 4 92 98.83175 331. 1131s I -6s61.2966 1417.3014 992.40514 200 5 92 106.49525 325.7956 -6317.2144 1632.6674 1143.2061 200 6 92 114.15875 320.17535 -6091.6897 1828.197 1280.1174 200 7 92 121.82225 314.83735 -5883.7261 2007.0231 1405.3327 ·200 8 92 129.48575 309.7677 -5692.5149 2171.6431 1520.6008 200 . filp.,·l/lr..-111,::,=,,r,;:/h,,mrvv.rinht!r)nc:1lTTlP.nts!SloneWNuecrest Estateslvuecrest e'Astino. sta:ic condition.html 314 11130/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: C ant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0, 370) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (94.35876, 350.16031) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (100.25406, 347.58742) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (0, 370) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft -. r; :: .-<?.S tileJ//C:/U sers/henry.wig hVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Es:3tes/wecr=*>t existing, static condition.html 2/4 11130/13. Slope Stability Slope Stabili1y Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE ln:ernational Ltd. ~r-r: ~ ""'~. ' Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 13 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 1:47:39 PM File Name: Vuecrest Existing, Static Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Use rs\henry. wright\Documents\SlopeW\ Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:47:40 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pd View: 2D Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface I Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fil eJI/C JUsers/henry.wrig htlDocurrents!SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vJeCrest e>Osfing, static condition.html 114 C 0 :;:, ro > (l) w 400 ,- 390 1···· 380 !··-· I 37 360 • - 350 340 330 320 I 3101- 300 !-- I 290 , ... 280 •-· 270 260 ,_ 250 r·------.. ----.. 240 ------- 230 - 220 ,_ 210 200 190 180 170 ,_ 160 ---........ Dense Native Soil ---------------------- 1.820 .- ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Vault Location), Static Condition November 30, 2013 ByHTW ---------------·--·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 I I I I I I I I I I I I I O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400 Distance 11/30/13 Slope Stability 10 1 n 126.2344 316.9284 -5086.2764 2078.2261 1455.1896 200 11 72 136.3234 I 311.141 -5889.8686 2161.1997 1513.2883 200 12 72 146.4124 \ 305.6671 -5713.1159 2238.4985 1567.4135 200 13 72 156.5014 300.4949 -5555.1514 2310.0401 1617.5075 200 14 72 166.59045 295.6137 -5415.2791 2374.1638 1662.4074 200 15 72 171.8679 293.13855 -5345.759 2406.5 1685.0494 200 16 72 176.66505 291.01415 c5265.9068 2515.7328 1761.5351 200 17 I n 185.7935 287.08755 -5121.2189 2733.9445 1914.3286 200 18 \ n 194.92195 283.3785 \ -4989.9738 2945.9066 2062.746 200 19 72 204.0504 279.88175 -4872.1259 3147.1761 2203.6764 200 20 72 213.17885 276.5924 -4767.1248 3331.7747 2332.9338 200 21 72 222.3073 273.5061 -4674.8482 3492.4705 2445.4542 200 22 72 231.43575 270.6188 -4594.8905 3621.9153 2536.0924 200 23 72 240.77635 267.8688 -4525.909 3609.6898 2527.532 200 24 72 250.329 265.26175 -4468.2111 3439.4613 2408.3367 200 25 72 259.88165 262.8614 -4423.3516 3207.1844 2245.6947 200 26 72 269.4343 260.6646 -4391.1752 2913.2372 2039.8707 · 200 27 72 278.98695 258.66855 -4371.574 2561.7475 1793.7549 200 28 72 288.5396 256.87075 -4364.2905 2159.8317 1512.3304 200 29 72 298.09225 255.269 -4369.3284 1716.9983 1202.2551 200 30 72 307.68625 253.8561 -4336.5179 1241.987 869.64863 200 31 72 317.32155 252.63195 -4266.0638 745.42984 521.9556 200 32 72 326.95685 251.602 -4207.7772 239.18413 167.47853 200 fi le:///CJU sers/henry.wight/Docurrents/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesMJeCrest proposed (residence), seismic condition.html 515 11/30/13 Slope Stability Point4 172.10083 320.14 Point 5 236 300 Point 6 334 250 Point 7 400 250 Point 8 I 101.10083 I 354.14108 Point 9 26.67 370 Point 10 0 371 Point 11-77 366 Point 12 21 376 Point 13 0 376 Point 14 91 355 Point 15 91 356 Point 16 81 356 Point 17 81 358 Point 18 71 358 Point 19 71 360 Point 20 51 362 Point 21 51 360 Point 22 51 362 Point 23 51 364 Point 24 41 364 Point 25 I 41 365 Point 26 31 365 Point 27 31 358 Point 28 25.67 368 Point 29 101 350 Point 30 96 350 Point 31 96 355 Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius ( ft) Entry (ft) . Exit ( ft) 1 72 1.216 (373.985, 737.223) 487.917 ( 52.2423, 370.421) (331. 774, 251.135) . ' Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength ( psf) Strength (psf) 1 72 58.384165 355.2105 -7990.7875 525.13106 328.13831 0 2 72 67.762995 357.3903 -7656.1381 926.02858 648.4122 200 3 72 74 352.4417 -7449.2718 1229.7594 861.08683 200 4 72 79 348.58475 -7290.2945 1400.6884 980.77258 200 5 72 86 343.41035 -7081.6083 1512.2004 1058.8541 200 6 72 93.5 337.99755 -6866.3446 1471.2286 1030.1654 200 7 72 98.5504 334.4968 -6730.4118 1555.5744 1089.2249 200 8 72 106.1008 329.4676 -6539.8971 1757.6235 1230.7012 200 9 72 116.14535 323.04235 -6303.0322 1988.3409 1392.2513 200 fi le)//C :/LI sers/henrv.v,;riq ht/Docurrents/S!opeWNuecrest Esta"."es/wecrest proposed (residence), seismic condition.html 4i5 11130/13 X {ft) y (ft} 10 249.88736 46.27953 I 240_31s24 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight}: 250 pcf Direction: Vertical X {ft} y (ft} 0 377 21 377 77 367 91 360 Horz Seismic load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No -. ("; ;; Material Dense Slope Stability Points Region Native 10, 9,28, 27,26,25,24,23,22, 20, 21, 19, 18,17, 16, 15,14,31,30, 29,8,3,4, 5,6, 7, l, 2 1 Soil Region Select 13, 10,9,28,27,26, 25, 24, 23,22, 20, 21, 19,18, 17, 16, 15, 14,31,30, 29,8, 11, 12 2 Fill Soil X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 111.10083 352.14108 file:f//C:/Users/henrv.wriQht/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Es1ates/vuecrest proposed ( residence), seismic condition.htm Area (ft'} 63994.441 654.8246 3/5 11/30/13 Slope Stability Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: S 0 Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200psf Phi:35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 ,-,.., .... -,. ::i:-,.,,. . :; left Projection: Range left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.18509, 376) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: {101.63203, 354.03484) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zi;>lie Left Coordinate: (109.77425, 352.4064) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (0, 376) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft 215 11/30/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using Geo Studio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. File lnforrnation Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 21 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 1:25:05 PM File Name: Vue crest Proposed (Residence), Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Use rs\henry. wright\Documents\Slope W\ Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:25:10 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function Interstice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant file:1//C :/Users/henry.wig ht/Oocurnents/SlopeWNuecrest Estat8SM.iecrest proposed (residence). seismic cof'l?ition.html 1/5 C 0 :.::; C1l > Q) w ; 400 ,- 3901-I 3so;J-;-I 370 360 350 , __ 340 •·-· 330 320 310 300 290 •·-- 280 270 260 t.:t J ~J Dense Native Soil 1 .216 .-- ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed (Residence Location), Seismic Condition November 30, 2013 ByHTW 250 ·---------------·----------------·---. _______ _ 240 230 220 210 , 200 1-- 190 180 170 160 ---------~-·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance ) 1/30/13 Slo;,e Stability 7 97 141.3679 314.11365 I -6157.8067 1680.3893 1176.6213 200 8 97 150.01565 308.97635 I -5978.4111 1751.2679 1226.251 200 9 97 158.66335 304.09875 -5815.3076 1815.7317 1271.389 200 10 97 167.3111 299.47115 -5667.7721 1874.4209 1312.4836 I 200 11 97 171.8679 297.1008 I -5593.1257 1905.0373 1333.9215 200 12 97 176.0945 295.0137 I -s5o9.2413 2000.543 1400.7953 200 13 97 184.0819 291.17335 -5357.3289 2192.3512 1535.1078 200 14 97 192.0693 287.52635 -5217.4488 2383.4754 1668.9274 200 15 97 I 200.0557 284.06755 -5089.3923 2573.0199 1801.5479 I 200 15 I 97 208.0441 280.79225 -4972.7354 2758.3796 1931.4382 200 17 97 216.0315 277.69605 -4857.3107 2935.0632 2055.8536 200 18 97 224.0189 274.775 -4772.758 3101.5671 2171.7407 200 19 97 232.0053 272.0255 -4688.9979 3248.9974 2274.9725 200 20 97 240.1793 269.38815 -4614.1102 3286.9996 I 2301.s819 200 21 97 248.53785 266.8675 -4548.6951 3200.606 2241.0884 200 22 97 256.8964 264.5246 -4494.3075 3066.511 2147.1941 200 23 97 265.255 262.3563 -4450.8388 2881.3954 2017.5748 200 24 97 273.61355 260.36005 -4418.1356 2644.9099 1851.9859 200 25 97 281.9721 258.53345 -4395.8811 2359. 1568 1651.8994 200 26 97 290.3307 256.87445 -4384.187 2028.8519 1420.6174 200 27 97 298.6893 255.38115 -4382.8931 1660.8821 1162.9621 200 28 97 307.722 253.95875 -4342.9891 1229.4978 860.90365 200 29 97 317.4288 252.6338 -4266.3217 740.9841 518.84266 200 30 97 327.1356 251.5259 -4203.1494 237.93423 166.60334 200 fileJ//C :/Users/henry.wig ht/Documants/S1opeWNuecrest Estates/weer est e;,r.isti ng ( reside'.'lce), seisl'Tlc candition.htrrt 4/4 11/30/13 t';; .. ~, S"'' ·--: Slope Stability X (ft) I y (ft) 0 I 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 10,9,8,3,4,5,6, 7, 1,2 64129.713 X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 111.10083 352.14108 Point4 172.10083 320.14108 Point 5 236 300 Point 6 334 250 Point 7 400 250 Point 8 · 101.10083 354.14108 Point 9 26.67 370 Point 10 0 371 . " '~~ ', ;· :.:-~·-Ci' : . . "' ·=· ,. ·.,;., • . ' Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 97 1.245 (372.681, 693.708) 444.548 (80.7049, 358.487) (331.989, 251.026) -.... _. \ ;" . -: ..,.. . ~ -~ -.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 -. Slip Surface 97 97 97 97 97 97 X (ft) 85.80389 96.001835 106.1008 115.4247 124.07245 132.72015 y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Stress (psf) _ Strength (psf) 354.17855 -7750.1264 182.89609 128.06522 345.8151 -7395.0085 693.7598 485.77584 338.0126 -7073.1077 1141.8951 799.56353 331.19685 -6800.0883 1408.4334 986.19571 325.2113 -6567.8275 1511.8254 1058.5916 319.52135 -6353.9421 1601.3589 1121.2836 fileJ//C :/Users/henry.wig h1/Docurnents/S1apeWNuecrest Estaies/wecrest existing (residence), seismic condition.html . Cohesive Strength (psf) 200 200 - 200 200 200 200 3/4 11/3(\113 · Slope Stability FOS Calculation Opti :onstant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: S' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 • Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35' Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Sdp Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.24812, 370.9532) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (107.02561, 352.95612) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (113.3958, 350.93716) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 e.._s ....; t,..? Left Coordinate: (0, 371) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft fileJ//C :/Users/herry.'wl"ig ht/D ocuments/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesNJec-rest e:idsting ( residence), seisnic concition.htm 214 11/30/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using Geo Studio 2Q07, version 7 .21. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE lnter:1a tlona I ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 19 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/26/2013 Time: 1:36:05 PM File Name: Vuecrest Existing (Residence), Seismic Condition.gsz Di rectory: C:\Us e rs\henry. wri ght\Documents\SI opeW\ Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/26/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:36:08 PM I '~ Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 20 Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line , Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fi!eJ//C:/U sers/henrv.wria ht/Dcx::uments/SlooeWNuecrest EstatesN.JeCre.st existi nQ (residence), selsmic condition.html 114 C 0 :;::, C'O > <I) LU ~F 390 380 - 370'' 360 350 340 330 320 ,_ 310 300 290 280 270 L I 260 r----Dense Native Soil _, ___ ----------------------------------------------------- 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 ,_ 160 --. .1.245 ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Residence Location), Seismic Condition November 26, 2013 ByHTW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 L-..J...---'~-'--'"""----'~-'--'"""---'~-'-'"""---'~-'--'----''---'--'-~----'---'-~------...... ~..._---...... ~--------'-~---........ ___.~.,___.____,~...__,_ ............ .....__,___. O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400 Distance 11130/13 Siope Stability 11 I 11 89.37634 3: 19 I -so19.o364 406.24064 3.84733 0 . 12 I 11 90.45878 351.02055 I -soo3.1111 415.48241 c,9.62223 0 13 77 91.5525 356.52015 I -7990.3839 238.69777 149.15492 0 114 77 92.657495 356.04735 -7978.9023 241.59862 150.96758 0 15 77 93.76249 . 355.60665 I -7969.4867 241.29175 150.77582 0 16 77 94.86749 355.1971 -7961.93 237.39184 148.33888 0 17 77 I 95.709995 354.90255 -7957.3932 249.55719 174.74182 200 18 77 96.508365 354. 5440s I -7954. 2588 223.32383 139.54822 0 19 77 97.525095 354.3342 -19s1.4921 I 209. 15351 131.06858 0 20 77 98.54182 354.0486 -7950.2931 192.03299 119.99553 0 21 j 77 I 99.55854 353.78685 I .-7950.5525 169.97944 106.21494 0 22 77 100.58385 353.5467 i -7952.3034 143.22019 89.493909 0 23 I 11 101.6429 353.3234 -7955.6988 144.76419 101.36498 200 24 77 I 102.12n 353.12 -7960.7301 140.74425 98.550182 200 25 77 103.8113 352.94215 -7967.276 130.99465 91.723442 200 26 77 104.89545 352.78955 -7975.4809 115.83552 81.108904 200 27 77 105.9796 352.6619 I -7985.1965 95.755219 67.048526 200 28 77 107.0638 352.55905 -7996.5219 71.40231 49.996435 200 29 77 108.148 352.48085 I -8009.3465 43.502878 30.461043 200 30 77 109.23215 352.42715 -8023.7168 12.835366 8.9874201 200 fil eJ//C :/U sers/herny. lM"i g hVDocumants/SI opeWNuecrest Estates/VI.Jecrest proposed( res! dence) , static condition .htmi 515 11/30/13 Slope Stability Point 5 I 236 Point 6 I 334 250 Point 7 400 250 Point 8 101.10083 354.14108 Point 9 26.67 370 Point 10 0 371 Point 11 77 366 Point 12 21 376 Point 13 0 376 Point 14 91 355 Point 15 91 356 Point 16 81 356 Point 17 81 358 Point 18 71 358 Point 19 71 360 Point 20 61 362 Point 21 61 360 Point 22 51 352 Point 23 51 364 Point 24 41 364 Point 25 41 366 Point 26 31 366 Point 27 31 368 Point 28 26.67 368 Point 29 101 350 Point 30 96 350 Point 31 96 355 Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 77 1.781 ( 111.077, 400.633) 48.244 (78.0107, 365.503) ( 109. 774, 352.406) Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress ( psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 77 78.55193 365.00855 -8307.8397 204.69065 127.90491 . 0 2 77 79.63437 364.04925 -8265.2677 ,238.54864 149.06174 0 3 77 80.71681 363.14575 -8226.6917 267.60619 167.21891 0 4 77 81.79925 362.2941 -8191.0762 292.84786 182.99165 0 5 77 82.88169 361.49095 -8158.7432 315.03813 196.85767 0 6 77 83.964135 350.73335 -8129.429 334.74389 209.1712 0 . 7 77 85.04658 360.0187 -8102.3398 352.38995 220.19758 0 8 77 86.12902 359.3448 -8077.8242 368.25421 230.11077 0 .. 9 77 87.21146 358.7097 -805S.9436 382.50879 239.01802 0 10177 88.2939 358.1116 -8036.4879 395.19585 246.94578 0 . . . fi!eJ//C :/U sers~.enry,wrig hVD ocuments/S!opeWNuecrest Estates/vJeCr est propJSed( residence), static condition.html 415 11/30/13 Slope Stability X (ft) y (ft) lo 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction: Vertical X (ft) y (ft) 0 377 21 377 77 367 91 360 "•-~ ~'. , .... : . ; Horz Seismic Load: 0 ;"'.-. re .''\ _i_t :.:-· Material Dense Points Region 1 Native 10, 9, 28, 27, 26,25,24, 23,22,20,21, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14,31,30, 29,8,3,4,5,6, 7, 1, 2 C "" ' ; -\ .. ,. Region 2 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Soil Select Fill Soil X (ft) 400 0 111.10083 172.10083 . ~~~~~~~~a~m2L~1~~~1~~3L~~~1LU y (ft) 150 150 -· 352.14108 320.14108 fi!e:///C:/Users/henrv.w-i a htfDocurrents/S!ooeWNuecrest Estates/\.tJOCrest proposed{ residence), static condition.html Area (ft2 ) 63994.441 654.8246 3/5 11130/13 Slope Stability Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 • Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 • " n ,-o I --'-e ~.,, ~ : c:, '.i :.;: Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil ~ [ ~ ,.)' f i Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: O psf Phi: 32 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.18S09, 376) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (101.63203, 354.03484) ft left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone left Coordinate: (109.77425, 352.4064) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: [400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 t~ ~ ; ..;,,;t..;; .. ace tJ Left Coordinate: (0, 376) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft fileJ//C:/UserslherYv.'Miqht/Docurrents/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesJwecrest proposed(residence), sta1lc cmdition.htrrl 215 11/30/13 Slope S!abi lity Slope Stability Report generated using Geo Studio 2007, version 7 .21. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE lnternationa 1 Ltd. r:I1., " ~~ ~" .. ~">~ , '.,.__.. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 20 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 1:17:20 PM File Name: Vuecrest Proposed(Residence), Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry. wri ght\Docume nts\SlopeW\ Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:17:22PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings S!ope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Prire Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: [none) · · ..... · FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant fi!eJ//C:/Users/henrv.v.ri_qht/Docurrents/StopeWNuecrest Estatesfv..iecrest proposed(residence), static conditlon.htr.11 1/5 C 0 ·.;::, Ill 6) w 370 360 ,_ 350 340 ,_ 330 320 310 •·- 300 290 280 270 260, Dense Native Soil ~50 ·1 ...... -........ ______ .. __ 240 ·----- 230 ------------------ 220 ------------- 1.897 • ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed (Residence Location), Static Condition November 30, 2013 ByHTW 210 ----------------- 200 ----------------------------------190 ______________ _ 180 170 ,_ 160 ,_ ...... _______ ...................................... ______ .,.,..,. .. 150 ,_....__.___,_..,_ ___ ___.__,..._...:....--'---'"---'---'-_,____._..,_.....__._ _______ _.....___._-'---'--'--'--....__.......,__,__,_....__,_..,__.____.__...._....__.__,__, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance C .Q -C1l > Q) w 400 390 380 370 360 350 340 330 •·- 320 ,_ 310 •·-· 300 290 •·- 280 270 ,_ 260 ,_ 250 240 !_ 230 ,_ 220 ,_ 210•- 200 ,_ 190 ,_ 180 •- 170 ,_ Dense Native Soil 1.781 .- ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Proposed (Residence Location), Static Condition November 30, 2013 ByHTW 1601- 150 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance 11/30/13 Siope Stability 8 I 97 150.015f 308.97635 -5978.4111 2113.6717 1480.0088 200 9 97 158.66335 304.09875 -5815.3076 2179.7902 1526.3055 200 10 I 97 167.3111 299.47115 -5667.7721 2229.9835 1561.4512 200 11 97 171.8679 297.1008 -5593.1267 2252.4174 1577.1597 200 12 97 176.0945 295.0137 I -5509.2413 2348.527 1644.4563 200 13 97 184.0819 . 291.17335 -5357.3289 2535.534 1775.4 200 14 97 192.0693 287.52635 -5217.4488 2711.3391 1898.5001 200 15 97 I 200.0567 I 284.06755 -5089.3923 2874.8323 2012.9793 200 16 97 208.0441 280.79225 -4972.7354 3024.5768 2117.8315 200 17 97 216.0315 I 277.69605 -4867.3107 3158.5615 I 2211.6486 200 18 97 224.0189 274.775 -4772.758 3274.3024 2292.6913 200 19 97 232.0063 272.0255 -4688.9979 3369.5418 2359.3786 · 200 20 97 240.1793 269.38815 -4614.1102 3349.1241 2345.0819 200 21 97 248.53785 266.8676 -4548.6951 3205.2011 2244.306 200 22 97 256.8964 264.5246 -4494.3075 3025.7366 2118.6436 200 .. 23 97 265.255 262.3563 -4450.8388 2809.7668 1967.4199 200 24 97 273.61355 260.36005 -4418.1356 2557.3216 1790.6559 200 25 97 281.9721 258.53345 -4395.8811 2269.6768 1589.2448 200 . 26 97 290.3307 256.87445 -4384.187 1948.7888 1364.5566 200 27 97 298.6893 255.38115 -4382.8931 1598.1227 1119.0176 200 28 97 307.722 253.95875 -4342.9891 1189.3435 832.78727 200 29 97 317.4288 252.6338 -4266.3217 723.85176 506.84646 200 30 97 327.1356 251.5259 -4203.1494 237.43208 . 166.25173 200 fi!eJ//C JUsers/henry.v.rig hVDocurnents/SlopeWNuecrest Estatesi\uecrest e;,dsting (residence), static condition.htm 414 11130/13 Slope Stability X (ft) y (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 I 111.63495 207.50984 I 302.86855 I 184.40726 400 183.45035 Seisn1lc Loads Herz Seismic Load: 0 Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 10,9,8,3,4,5,6,7,1,2 64129. 713 Point 1 Point 2 Point3 Point4 Point 5 Point6 Point 7 Points Point9 Point 10 X (ft) 400 0 111.10083 172.10083 236 334 400 101.10083 26.67 0 _, .,--"", "-"> 1 .,:C:,'" Slip Surface FOS y (ft) 150 150 352.14108 320.14108 300 250 250 354.14108 370 371 Center (ft) Radius ( ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 97 1.955 ( 372.681, 693. 708) 444.548 ( 80. 7049, 358.487) (331.989, 251.026) Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP (psf) Base Nor.mal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress ( psf) Strength ( psf) Strength (psf) 1 97 85.80389 354.17855 -7750.1264 242.09876 169.51938 200 2 97 96.001835 345.8151 -7395.0085 826.71585 578.87267 200 3 97 106.1008 338.0126 I -1013.1077 1356.1104 949.55874 200 4 97 115.4247 331.19685 -6800.0883 1682.2929 1177.9542 200 5 97 124.07245 325.2113 -6567.8275 1817.6223 1272.7129 200 6 97 132.72015 319.52135 -6353.9421 1933.3895 1353.7739 200 7 97 141.3679 314.11365 -6157.8067 2031.7336 1422.6352 200 I fi leJ//C:/Users/henry. 'M'"ig htfDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrest e)(lsting (residence), static ccndlfion.htrrJ 314 11/30/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Opti Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 • Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1' Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35 ° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.24812, 370.9532) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (107.02561, 352.95612) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (113.3958, 350.93716) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (0, 371) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft fiteJ//C :/Users/henry.wig ht/Do::urnents/SlcpeWNuecrest Estates!vuecrest existing (residence), static condition.htni 214 11/3()/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using Geo Studio 2007, version 7 .21, Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE: ,;-iternatlona I Ltd. Title: Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/26/2013 Time: 1:34:37 PM File Name: Vue crest Existing (Residence), Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\he nry. wright\Documents\Slope W\ Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/26/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:34:38 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: I bf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 20 Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fileJJ/C:A.Jsers/henry.w--ighVDocurrents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest rodstlng (residence), static condition.html 114 C 0 :.;:; (1) > Q) w '""\ 400 .~ 390 •·- 380 ,_ 370' 360 350 340 ;-· 330 1-- 320 310 300 290 280 , __ 270 •- 260 Dense Native Soil 1.955 .- ES-2660.01 Vuecrest Estates Existing (Residence Location), Static Condition November 26, 2013 ByHTW 250 r·-------- -------~---------------, ____ _ 240 •- 230 •- 220 210 200 190 •- 180 170 160 150 0 ···------.... ···---------... --------···-----. ------. --. -----.. ---. ·----------------------------. ---·-----.. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 Distance Geonerco Properties, LLC December 2, 2013 Response ES-2660.G1 Page4 The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 2012 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class C, should be used for design. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Attachment: Slope W Computer Output cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, Ll December 2, 2013 AESI Comment 4 -Foundation Setbacks ES-2660.01 Page 3 Review Comment 4 suggests the minimum foundation setback reference be the outside face of the lowermost foundation element measured to the face of the finish grade at the permanent slope. Response We agree with this reference and it should be included in the final approved plans. AESI Comment 5 -Fill Slope Height The review comment indicates that creating a 2H:1V slope over 15 feet in height 'creates' a landslide hazard. The current plan proposal maintains permanent fill slope heights to less than 15 feet, therefore, this comment is adequately addressed. AESI Comment 6 -SlopeW Analysis The review comment suggests that inadequate input parameters were used or that the factors-. of-safety reported did not agree with the calculations for the slope stability modeling analysis. Response The attached slope stability analysis used strength parameters which reflect the soil conditions present on the site, and are valid for this project. It is important to note that computer models are a tool and part of the overall evaluation of a site and proposed project. When employing such a tool to assess a project, we use professional judgment to evaluate the results. In this respect, we filter factors-of-safety output to identify what we expect is most likely for a given site and conditions. It is often the case that a critical failure surface which is generated from a computer program may not agree with what we expect to see on a particular site. Therefore, we choose a slip surface which most agrees with what we would expect to occur and present the corresponding factor-of-safety in our report. AESI Comment 7 This comment is addressed in the current proposal. AESI Comment 8 This comment is addressed in the current proposal. AESI Comment 9 Comment 9 relates to the IBC code year recognized for this project, which is the 2012 version. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC December 2, 2013 AESI Comment 1 -Subsurface Conditions ES-2660.01 Page2 Review comment 1 discusses the geologic conditions which were described in published geologic map resources and compares those to the subsurface conditions described in the referenced report prepared by ESNW. The review comment suggests that the conditions described in the referenced report do not adequately describe the stratigraphy of the subject site. Response ESNW conducted subsurface explorations across accessible areas of the subject site during preparation of the referenced report. We also reviewed readily available geologic map resources to supplement the directly observed site conditions. While a full stratigraphic exploration program was not completed for this site and the descending slope to the west, in our opinion, the exploration program provides adequate information regarding the soil and groundwater conditions which would most likely impact the proposed project. The soils J observed along the western portion of the site consisted of silt in a stiff to hard condition at depth, while the soils across the remaining area of the site generally consisted of isolated areas of outwash transitioning quickly to dense silty sand deposits. No groundwater was observed. In this respect, while soil from differing depositional environments may be present, the relative density and Jack of groundwater supports a general description in terms of engineering properties. Furthermore, while there is the presence of silt deposits near the western side of the site, it is overlain by soils which have very low permeability characteristics to the east; therefore, the risk of a slippage plane being present or developing is very low, The site conditions which pose the greatest risk are related to controlling surface water flow and the effects of erosion, which are addressed in the referenced report and reflected in the current design, largely in the form of controlled stormwater management and engineered fill. The proposed project includes construction of single-family residences, access roadways and infrastructure improvements including a stormwater detention vault. It is acknowledged in the referenced report that landslide and erosion hazards are on or adjacent to the subject site and those conditions were discussed in the referenced report. A cross-section was developed throughJhE, site based on the conditions enc_ountered ancf the proposed gradi;g plans to evaluate overall stability. The cross-section is attached.· " /' ~=~=-::-.:: .:cc . ! AESI Comment 2 and 3 -Landslide Hazard Analysis Comments 2 and 3 relate to the descending steep slope, characterizing the potential landslide hazard and providing setbacks from the proposed fill slopes. Response The grading plans have been modified to omit the rockery at the base of the fill slope and the new slope height is .lowered to about 15 feet The current proposal addresses the comments provided in items 2 and 3. With respect to the adequacy of the potential landslide analysis, a slope stability analysis for existing and currently proposed finish grades is attached. The results of the stability analysis suggests that the proposed grading plan will not increase the potential for landslide· activity on the site or adjacent steep slope areas. -'" -~-. Earth Solutions Nl'V, LLC December 2, 2013 ES-2660.01 Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Response to Geotechnical Review Proposed Vuecrest Residential Plat Smithers Avenue Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Slope Setback Letter ES-2660.01, dated July 15, 2013 D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Revised Site Plan Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AES!) Geotechnical Review Letter Project TE130415A, dated October 31, 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechr.ica! Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address comments provided in the referenced geotechnical review letter for the subject project. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study and subsequent letters for the site and has been providing ongoing geotechnical consulting services during the design phase of the project. EXHIBIT 21 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449- Geonerco Properties, LL __ December 10, 2013 Closure ES-2660.01 Page 3 In our opinion, based on the above criteria and our understanding of the proposal, the project: • will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and • The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and • The development can be safely accommodated on the site. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC -o 1eg Project Manager Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers. Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC December 10, 2013 Comment -Subsurface Conditions ES-2660.01 Page 2 , Regarding the ESNW response letter, at least one issue seems to remain outstanding. This is the requirement that the following three conditions (RMC 4-3-050J.2.b) be met by the proposal: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. Response Based on the conditions encountered at the test pit locations, review and collaboration with the project design team and our understanding of the project, the following details address the three conditions provided in the comment: • There have been no recorded landslide events on the site based on review of readily available information, nor were there signs of excessive or chronic erosion or landslide activity observed during site visits conducted by ESNW representatives. Review of King County iMAP aerial photos dating as far back as 1936 show complete forested conditions and no signs of landslide activity (we acknowledge the gap of aerial coverage between 1936 and 1989). • Subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit locations indicate, from a geotechnical standpoint, relatively consistent engineering properties exist within the soil strata across the site and have been considered in developing recommendations for the current proposal. • Site designs have been modified to reduce the impacts to steeply sloped areas of the property. This approach will mitigate the potential for instability compared to the pre- development condition. • Storm drainage facilities and elements have been designed to a) collect and convey runoff to a detention vault, and b) discharge at a pre-developed rate within an existing drainage pathway. This condition will decrease the potential for instability compared to the pre-development condition. • Grading activities will be designed, i.e. structural fill, placement methods, drainage, foundation setbacks, etc. which will ensure the final configuration is as stable and resistant to landslide activity as the pre-development condition. • The proposal is consistent with surrounding developments which, to our knowledge, have not been adversely impacted by landslide activity. • Finally, the SlopeW analysis included in the referenced letter indicates a) no decrease in critical factor-of-safety values from a post-construction condition, and b) acceptable critical factor-of-safety* values from a global standpoint. This analysis agrees with the conditions encountered at the test pit locations. * Critical factor-of-safety is defined herein as the lowest factor-of-safety calculated in the SlopeW analysis. Earth Solutions NW, LLC ' December 10, 2013 ES-2660.01 Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Geotechnical Addendum Proposed Vuecrest Residential Plat Smithers Avenue Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Response to Review Comments ES-2660.01, dated December 2, 2013 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Slope Setback Letter ES-2660.01, dated July 15, 2013 D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Revised Site Plan Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AES!) Geotechnical Review Letter ProjectTE130415A, dated October 31, 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Ceotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address comments provided in the referenced geotechnical review letter for the subject project. This letter specifically addresses concerns regarding stability of the project and potential impacts to the site and surrounding properties as outlined in City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3- 0SOJ.2.b, as noted in a December 9, 2013 email from City of Renton staff. 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • {425 EXHIBIT 20 -.. Otak -Water and Natural Resources February 24, 2014 19017-00 Page 4 against slope failure exceeding the generally accepted values of 1.5 in the static case and 1.1 in the seismic case, we consider this a reasonable statement based on common geotechnical engineering practice in this area. USE OF THIS LETTER Work for this project was performed, and this letter was prepared, in accordan.ce with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Otak and the City of Renton, or their consultants, for specific application to the referenced site. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We based our review on subsurface conditions interpreted from subsurface soil and groundwater conditions reported by others. The nature and extent of conditions between the explorations may differ from those presented. If significant subsurface variations become evident during construction, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer of record be consulted to provide revised design recommendations, as needed. CLOSING We thank you for this opportunity to provide geotechnical consulting services. If you have any questions, please contact Rolf Hyllseth at (206) 8264586. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. ROLF B. HYLLSETH, PE Associate Geotechnical Engineer rolf.hyllseth@hartcrowser.com MICHAEL BAILEY, PE CEO mike.bailey@hartcrowser.com L:\Iobs\ 1901700\Geotech Peer Review· Vuecrest Residential Development.doc • • • • -.. Otak -Water and Natural Resources February 24, 2014 1901 7-00 Page 3 reference, slope stability safety factors of 1.5 in the static case and 1.1 in the seismic case are generally considered adequate in local geotechnical engineering practice. 3. AESI commented that there were several issues with the initial slope stability analyses provided. In our opinion, these were adequately addressed by ESNW with their supplemental slope stability runs submitted on December 2, 2013, based on common geotechnical engineering practice. 4. The original design proposal included a 4-foot high rockery at the base of the planned 2H:1V fill slope. AESI commented that an unreinforced rockery should not be used as a retaining wall structure. ESNW responded by removing this rockery from the design. In addition, the toe of the fill slope was also moved 10 feet back from the existing top of steep slope area, as discussed in item 2 above. 5. A stormwater detention vault is proposed near an existing drainage ravine at the south end of the site, with a planned release of stormwater into the existing ravine. Given the classification of the site soils as "high erosion hazard," AESI commented that the applicant should demonstrate that such stormwater discharge will not cause erosive flows within the existing ravine, or provide alternate discharge design to prevent stormwater directed over the site slopes. ESNW responded in their December 10 letter that storm drainage facilities have been designed to discharge stormwater at a pre-developed flow rate into the existing ravine, which will reduce the potential for instability. While this sounds like a reasonable approach, we recommend that the applicant be required to provide a stormwater collection and discharge design stamped by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in stormwater design. This design should specifically address the potential for increased surface erosion and potential for slope instability with associated with the proposed design. SUMMARY ESNW provided the following code-required minimum risk statement in their December 10 letter: • The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; • The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and • The proposal can be safely accommodated on the site. Given the presence of competent glacial soils at the site, the relatively low inclination of the existing steep slopes (2H:1 VJ, and the slope stability analyses demonstrating static and seismic safety factors -.. Otak -Water and Natural Resources February 24, 2014 REVIEW COMMENTS 19017-00 Page 2 Based on our review of the above-referenced documents, it is our opinion that the applicant's geotechnical engineer (ESNW) has addressed the review comments provided by the City of Renton peer review geotechnical engineer (AESI; letter dated October 31, 2013) in a manner that is generally consistent with current geotechnical practice in our local area. We understand that no additional follow-up review by AESI has occurred after the ESNW response. However, in their December 2, 2014 response to the AESI review comments, ESNW submitted additional slope stability analyses and addressed AESl's questions regarding geologic cross section and deeper soil conditions. Additionally, in their December 10, 2013 letter, ESNW also provided the minimum risk statement (three conditions of no adverse development impact), as required by Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050-]2.b) and requested by the City of Renton in their email correspondence dated December 9, 2013. A brief summary of the main geotechnical review comments by AESI and final responses by ESNW, along with our comments, is provided below for your information: 1. AESI commented that additional geologic cross sections and more detailed and deeper subsurface information was required for the slope stability analysis. ESNW generally responded in their December 2 letter that additional explorations should not be necessary since the test pit explorations confirmed dense, glacially-derived soil and perched groundwater conditions across the site, and that the risk of deeper subsurface uncertainty (such as risk of a potential weaker soil slippage plane) is very low. Given the geologic mapping of glacial soils at the site and the relatively low inclination of the steep slopes (about 50 percent, or 2Horizontal:1Vertical [1H:1V]), we concur this assessment is consistent with common geotechnical engineering practice. 2. The current proposal is to construct house footings on the planned fill slope, with a setback of 20 feet from the existing top of the steep slope area. AESI commented that the proposed 2H:1V fill slope at the top of the existing steep slopes (sensitive area) should also be considered a regulated sensitive/protected slope (if greater than 15-foot high), with the additional development setback requirement behind the top of the planned fill slopes. ESNW responded in their December 2 letter by reducing the fill slope height to 15 feet and providing a 1 0-foot setback from the existing top of steep slope area to the toe of the planned fill slope, while maintaining the 20-foot setback from the existing (native) top of slope. Given the provided slope stability analysis showing a static and seismic safety factor against slope failure of 1.78 and 1.22, respectively, for this condition, we would consider this a reasonable design based on common geotechnical engineering practice. For -.. wwvv:hortcrowsc:r. c,.;·1·; HI.IRTCROWSER February 24, 2014 Mr. Greg Laird Otak -Water and Natural Resources 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents -Vuecrest Residential Development 4800 Block Smithers Avenue S Renton, Washington City of Renton Project No.: LUA 13-000&42 19017-00 Dear Greg: This letter provides a summary of our geotechnical review of the geotechnical permit documents pertaining to the above-referenced development site. Our work was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Task Order dated January 30, 2014 as authorized by Otak on February 7, 2014. PERMIT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED We reviewed the following geotechnical permit documents: • Geotechnical Engineering Study by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW), dated February 25, 2013; • Slope Setback Letter by ESNW, dated April 10, 2013; • Geotechnical Review Letter by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc (AESI), dated October 31, 2013; • Slope Setback Letter by, dated April 10, 2013; • Response to Geotechnical Review by ESNW, dated December 2, 2013; • City of Renton email review comments by Elizabeth Higgins, dated December 9, 2013 • Geotechnical Addendum by ESNW, dated December 10, 2013; and • Preliminary Plat Plan (Cl) and Grading Plan (C4) by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, dated December, 2013; 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109-6212 Fax 206.328.5581 Tel 206.324.9530 EXHIBIT 19 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: _v_u_e_m_o_n_t ________________ Ctty/County: _:R.::e::n:.:to::nc._ ________ Sampling Date: _9_/_6_11_2 ___ _ Applicant/Owner: Harbour Homes State: WA Sampling Point: _S_2 ____ _ lnvestigator(s): _S_B _________________ Section, Township, Range: _3_1c_,2_3_N_,c_5_E ______________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c:..:oc.nc:c.::av-'-e'-----Slope(%): +/-5% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.436295 Long: -122.208721 Datum: ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood 5 -15% slopes NWI classification: _N_/_A _______ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation___. Soi! ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes_ .(_ _ No ___ _ Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ natura!ly problematic? (ff needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes --No -,/ -Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes --No --within a Wetland? Yes No ,/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,/ --- Remarks: Not present during site visit but secondary indicators were present VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 0l'g Cover Sgecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Thuja plicata 30 y Fae That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 0 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 30 y FacU Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across AH Strata: 6 (B) 4. 60 = Tqtal Cover Percent of Dominant Species 0 Sag!ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (NB) 1. Rubus ursinus 60 y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 y FacU Total 0/o Cover of: Multigl:i by: 3. Vacclnium parviflorium 20 y FacU OBL species X 1 = 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= 100 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5= 1. Polystichum munitum 10 y FacU (A) (B) Column Totals: 2. 3. Prevalence Index -BIA - 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. -Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is s3.01 7. Morphological Adaptation_s 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 9. - 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: \ 1. Hydro phytic 2. Vegetation ,/ Present? Yes ---No = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: _V_u_e_m_o_n_t ________________ City/County: .;.R_e_n_t_on _________ Sampling Date: _9_16_1_1_2 ___ _ Applicant/Owner: Harbour Homes State: WA Sampling Point: _S_2 ____ _ lnvestigator{s): _S_B _________________ Section, Township, Range: _3_1~,2_3_N_,_5_E ______________ _ Landform (hi!lslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): _co_n_ea_v_e _____ Slope(%): +/-5% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.436295 Long: -122.208721 Datum: ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood 5-15% slopes NWI classification:.;.N.;.lc..A;_ ______ _ Are climatic/ hydro\ogic conditions on the site fypical for this time of year? Yes _I __ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_____, Soi! ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are gNormal Circumstances" present? Yes_ ./ _ No __ _ Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes --No -,/ -Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes --No --within a Wetland? Yes No I Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,/ ------ Remarks: Not present during site visit but secondary indicators were present VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 0&i Cover SQecies? Stat!,!~ Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum 70 y FaeU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) 2. Thuja plicata 20 y Fae Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) 4. 90 Percent of Dominant Species 62 ;;:; Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A/B) SagliogLShrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rubus spectabilis 50 y Fae Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria ceraslformis 20 y FaeU Total % Cov§:r gf-MultiQIY by: . 3. Sambucus racemosa 10 N FaeU OBL species X 1 ;;:; 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAG species x3= 80 -Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: \ UPL species x5= 1. Athyrium filix-femlna 30 y Fae Column Totals: (A) (8) 2. Ranunculus repens 10 y FacW 3. Carex obnupta 10 y Obi Prevalence Index = B/A - 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. .( Dominance Test is >50% - 6. Prevalence Index is S:3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data ·in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 -9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 10. 11. 1 lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50 -Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: \ 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation I Present? Yes No ----Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Val!eys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point· Profile Description: {Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist} _jL_ Color (moist} ___'&______.... ---1YmL. Loci Texture Remarks 0-8" 2.5Y 2.5/1 80 Sil ------------ 8-18+" 2.5Y 4/2 80 10YR 3/4 5 C M Sil ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ 1T""'e; c-concentration, o-oenletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, cs-covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL-Pore Linin{l, M-Matrix. Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3 : _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A 10) ~ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) . Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) .( Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) ~Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Sutface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or prob!ematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soll Present? Yes .( No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima(Y lndicatgrs (minimum of one reguired· check all that aQQ!y} Seconda!Jl lodicators (2 or more reguired} _ SurfaceWater(A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA .!__ Water-Stained Leaves (B9} (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) .:[_ Drainage Patterns (B 1 O} _ Water Marks (B 1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) .!_ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) . FAC-Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes __ No_ .( _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes __ No _-I__ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes __ No _./_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes .( No ------fincludes cari!fan1 frinne\ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aeria! photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: ____ _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color {moist) _jg_ Color {moist} ...:.__%___ ~ Loci Texture Remarks 0-3 11 10YR 3/2 90 Sil ------------ 3-18+" 10YR 3/4 90 Sil ------------ ------------' . ------------ .· --------- --------- --------- ------------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, cs-covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininn, M=Matrix. ., .. Hyff_ri.~ Soil.Indicators: (ApplJcable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.} Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils~: _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A~) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic {A3) ···-· Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) , Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ~··, _ Depleted Below Dark Surfade (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6} 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ..' Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,· · · Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4f"''-Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer {if prese:_pl): Type: Depth (inches): Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes No ./ Remarks: -· -;.,. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Erima!}'. Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;;ml:t) Seconda[t Indicators (2 or more reguired) _ SuriaceWater(A1) _ Water-Stal_ned Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ~ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, ·-High WaterTable (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (B 10) _ Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ~ Shallow Aquitard (03) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in TiHed Soils (C6) . FAC-NeutralTest (D5) ~ Suriace Soll Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR_A) -~. ' . Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (~plain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave S_1,Jrfac!:3.(B8) Field Observations: Suriace Water Present? Yes __ No _ ,/ _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes __ No_:!__ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes __ No_./_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ---No ,/ (includes caoi!Jarv frinae) Df'<>r.ri!Je Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: ~,,. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version f, 1 Wet/d11d l(ego11rces, ll1c. if Delineation/ Mitigation/ nnslorstlon / Habilat Creation I Permit Assistance SUPPLEMENTAL STREAM STUDY FOR VUECREST ESTATES RENTw,r, WA Wetland Resource,; Inc. Projecl #12174 Prepared fu,: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 Prepared For: Harbour Homes by Geonerco Attn:Jamie Walticr 1300 De.xter Ave l\"m #500 Seattle, WA 98 J 09 May 10, 2013 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 EXHIBIT 18 SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) conducted a site investigation on September 6, 2012 on a 9.31-acre parcel located at the soutbern terminus of Smitbers Avenue S in-Renton, \,VA (portion of Section 31, Township 23N, Range 05E, W.M.). King County Tax Parcel #3123059048 is the subject property for this repmt. The purpose of this investigation was to identify any jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the subject parcel. This report is intended to supplement the Critical Areas Study for Vuemont, dated April 8, 2013 (CAS), and meet the requirements established in RMC Scction4-8-120D. - The investigation area is bordered by Morris Avenue S to the west, with residential development to the nortb, south and east. No structures are currently present within the boundary of the subject property. A temporary cul-de-sac associated with the terminus of Smithers Ave Sis located in the north central portion of the site. The remaining portion of tbe site is forested and appears relatively undisturbed and is vegetated with a mixed canopy, non-mature forest. Topography of the site generally trends west with a slight depression near the eastern property boundary, a linear depression roughly paralleling the southern property line, and steep west aspect slope on the western half of the site. As part of tbis investigation, one wetland and stream were identified on tbe subject property. Details related to the wetland are identified in the CAS. An intermittent stream ·was identified exiting the southern portion of the property flowing west down the steep slopes identified as part of plat application. At the time of investigation the stream was entirely dry. Its channel becomes incised at the point it intersects the steep slope (greater than 10%) before exiting the site near its southwest corner. The on-site stream is intermittent, non-sahnonid, averaging approximately 2 feet ,vide has an average gradient of greater than 20 percent and is not mapped on King County iMap, Salmonscape or the \Vashington State Department of Natural Resources Map·s. Per RMC 4-3-0JOL streams v,ith these characteristics are classified as a Class 4 and is designated a 35~foot buffer from its flagged boundary. In situations where wetland and stream buffers overlap, the more restrictive shall apply. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The applicant is proposing to subdivide the eastern two-thirds of the property into twenty-one single-family residential lots. Access for tbese lots will be from the continuation of Srnilhcrs Avenue S and extending east to a temporary turn around at SE 186tl> Pl. The applicant evaluated tbe potential for extending the road to tbe south, which would cross the wetland and stream system but opted _to avoid the impact. No impacts are proposed to the Class 4 stream The only modification is Lulfer averaging which is primarily associated with the wetland buffer. Supplemental Stream Stuefy Vuecrest I T1iIII # 12171 Avoidance -No impacts are proposed to the Class 1 stream: Multiple development alternatives were evaluated and it was determined that the goals of the development proposal could be accomplished by avoiding <lirecl. impacts to the stream. The buffer averaging would be necessary to accommodate the SE 185 1h Pl, the proposed slorrnwater detention tract, and Lots 9 and 10. Minimization -Impacts to the stream ha.vr: been minimized to the greatest extent possible. First hy avoiding impacts as described above and second by limiting impacts to buffer averaging, primarily the wetland buffer, and only a very small portion of the stream buffer '.the wetland buffer is the most restrictive). Rectifying -No permanent or temporary impacts are proposed to the Class 4 stream, therefore no restoration is proposed. Reducing -Tract B (Sensitive Area Tract) will be permanently protected and therefore the potential temporal impact associated with the buffer averaging"@ be reduced over time. Compensali.ng-The buffer avCTaging proposal meets the requirements established in RMC Chapter 4-3-050(L)(5)(d) and (lv!)'.6)(Q. In addition, high quality forested buffer will be provided on the southern side of the wetland and stream at the required 1:1 ratio. IMPACT EVALUATION (a) There is one Class 4 intermittent stream located within the boundary of the subject property. The stream averages approximately 2 feet wide and is approximately 650' long 011 site. It has a mud bottom with no cobble-gravel substrate. Thi.s stream primarily acts as a conveyance of hydrology from the upstream wetland. It does have a moderate water quality and stormwater storage functlon given the presence of instream woody and emergent vegetation and its association with the on-site wetland system. No fish habitat is present within the on-site portion of the stream or immediately downstream. (b) The applicant is entirely avoiding impacts to the on-site stream. Buffer averaging is proposed along the stream/wetland systerr1, but it mostly relates to the larger wetland buffer. It's unlikely any alternative site plans would have le_ss impact to the s_tream system .. (c) The application meets the criteria established in RMC Chapter 4-3-050(L)(5)(d) and (M)'.6)(Q. and is entirely avoiding impacts to the on-site Class 4 stream therefore, no significant detrimental impacts are proposed or will occur as part of this project. (d) Since no impacts are proposed to the Class 4 stream and the buffer averaging proposal averaging proposal has been designed to meet the criteria established in RMC Chapter 4-3-050(L)(5)(d) and (M)(6)(!), there are no expected cumulative detrimental environmental impacts associated with this application. Supplemental Stream Siudy Vuecrest 2 WRl#I2174 CONCLUSION No reduction in the functions and values of the on-site Class 1 stream are expected from the implementation of this proposed development activity. The buffers adjacent to the stream, even in their averaged form, are grncrnlly larger than the standard buffers required for this type of stream in the City of Renton and therefore this stream is adequately protected. USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Area Study is supplied to Harbour Homes by Geonerco as a means of determining on-site environmentally sensitive area conditions, as required by the City of Renton. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. The laws applicable to critical areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. ~ o otl1er representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Ecologist Su.ppkmtntal Strnam Study Vt1ecrest 3 WRI # 12174 REFERENCES <:::ity_of Renton Municipal Code, Title 4 Chapter 3. Renton, WA. Ord. 5286, May 14, 2007. Castellc, AJ., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. \Vittcr, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson, and S.S. Cooke. 1992. Y.{ctland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Washington. Department of Ecology, Publication No. 92-10. Olympia, WA. Cooke, Sarah S. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM). Cooke Scientific Services. February 2000. Corps of Engineers Wetlands :i:Lelineation Manual. 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Colet, and E. T. LaRoc. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Dee12...;yater_Hal:,_itats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. December 1979. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington- Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Nort.hwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P.Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. _Granger. S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. We_!lands in Washington State -Volume I: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06- 006. Olympia, WA. March 2005. Soil Survey: King County Area, Wasliington. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. November 1973. vVashingt.on State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March l 997. Supplemental Stream Study Vuecrest 4 WRJ# 12174 SOIL Sampling Point· Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist} _J,_ Color (moist) _____%__~~ Texture Remarks 0-18+" 2.5Y 4/2 60 10YR 3/4 5 C M Sil --------- --------- --------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------. ------------ 1r,·-e: C=Concentration, O;c;DenJetion, RM Reduced Matrix, CS Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL Pore Lininn, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipe~on (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ./ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present}: Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes .( No ------ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima!Jl Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that agg!y} Secondaey Indicators (2·or more reguired} _ Surface Wat$r (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA .!_ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) .:{__ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) _ Saturation Visible on Aeria! Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) .!_ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquifard (D3) Iron Deposits (BS) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) . FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ other (Explain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes --No -,/ -Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes __ No_./_ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes __ No _./_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ./ No ---l]nc!udes caniJJan, frinne\ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: _V_u_e_m_o_n_t ________________ City/CounP}: _R_e_n_to_n _________ Sampling Date: _9_16_1_1_2 ___ _ Applicant/Owner: Harbour Homes State: WA Sampling Point: _S_1 ____ _ lnvestigator(s):_S_B _________________ Section, Township, Range:_3_1_,2_3_N_,_5_E ______________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_ca_v_e _____ Slope (%): +/-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat 47.436295 Long: -122.208721 Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name: Alder,,.vood 5 -15% slopes NWI classification: _N_I_A _______ _ Are climatic I hydro logic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes__{_ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_.., Soil ___ , or Hydrology"_ _ significantly disturbed? Are ~Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ ./ _ No __ _ Are Vegetation __ , Soi! ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -./ -No --Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes -./ -No --./ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ./ ------------ Remarks: Not present during site visit but secondary indicators were present VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (P!ot size: ) 0/'!J Cover Sgecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Fraxinus latifolia 40 y FacW That Are OBL, FACW, orFAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 66 Sa12ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A/8) 1. Spirea doug!asii 60 y FacW Prevalence Index work.sheet: 2. Rubus ursinus 20 y FacU Total% Cover of: Multig!y ~; 3. OBL species x1= 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= = Tota! Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5= 1. Column Totals: (A) (8) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: 5. . ./ Dominance Test is >50% - 6. Prevalence Index is S3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 -9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 10. 11. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Tota! Cover Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydro phytic 2. Vegetation Present? Yes ---No ---= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version @'iif " TOP OF STEEP SLOPE LEGEND f ~~]WETLAND ·· ......... "-STREAM ' ', "-, ' BUFFER Ill BUFFER AVERAGING (REDUCTION) ~ BUFFER AVERA.GING ~ (ADDITJQN) @ @ DATA SITES • NGPAS!GNS CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP VUECREST SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E, WM CLA.SS 4 STREAM 2 CJ CJ CJ CJ G D TRACT"A" STORM CAAINAGE (/J w ~ (/J D:'. w I :a, (/J • BUFFER AVERAG!NG (REDUCTION) 2,160 SF 18 17 16 BUF ER AVERAGING (ADDITION) ! 782 SF BUFFER AVERAGING (REDUCTION) 8,308 SF CATEGORY JI WETLAND 21 BUFFER AVERAGING (ADDITION) 8,413 SF Scale 1" = 60' 90 "'"""' (<>$) "''"" ~~-~~~ ' 120 CilfTICALA/!EA ~DY t,IAP -= RENTON, WA Karbour Hemes Sheet 1 /1 Attn:J,uTiie Waltier WRI Job #121 74 1300 Dexter Ave N, #500 Drawn ~y: S. Brainard Seattle, WA 981 09 Dote: 4/B1i3 REFERENCES City of Renton Municipal Code, Title 4 Chapter 3. Renton, WA Ord. 5286, May 14, 2007. Castelle, AJ., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson, and S.S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Washington. Department of Ecology, Publication No. 92-10. Olympia, WA Cooke, Sarah S. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM). Cooke Scientific Services. February 2000. Cows of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. December 1979. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington- Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P.Johnson, K. Harper, A McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -Volume 1: A Synthesis oftl1e Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06- 006. Olympia, WA. March 2005. Soil Survey: King County Area, Washington. U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service. November 1973. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. Critical Area Study Vuecrest 9 Wetland Resources, Inc. WRI# 12174 effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard, PWS Pnnd.pal Ecolofi.st Critical Area Stu.tfy Vuecrest Wetland Resources, Inc. 8 WRI#12174 Existing Conditions Wetland Hydrologic Function The wetland is in a topographic depression adjacent to the intennittent stream. In general, depressional wetlands with direct connected to an intennittent stream have moderate potential to perform hydrologic functions. This wetland collects and temporarily stores precipitation as well as floodwater entering downstream sytems during storm events. This wetland provides a low to moderate value for this function. Water Qyality The wetland is moderately densely vegetated and the residence time of water within this wetland is low to moderate, given its gradient and association with the stream. These characteristics allow for the wetland to serve somewhat as a filter and allow sediment in the water to settle. This wetland provides a low to moderate value for this function. Wildlife Habitat .This wetland provides a low to moderate level of habitat interspersion given that it is primarily forested. This wetland provides secondary habitat to multiple species of birds. However, the size of this wetland and its proximity to residential development limits its ability to provide a high value for wildlife functions. This wetland provides a moderate value for this function. WILDLIFE During our September 2012 visit,. few wildlife species were observed. Avian species observed during the site visit include: American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), and red-breasted nuthatch (Sitka canadensis). Mammals expected to use this site include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews (Sorex spp.), coyote (Canis latrans), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and eastern cottontail rabbits (Syl:vilagusjloridanus). USEOFTIIlSREPORT This Critical Area Study is supplied to Goldsmith Land Investments, LLC as a means of detennining on-site environmentally sensitive area conditions, as required by the City of Renton. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. The laws applicable to critical areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in Critical Area Study Vuecrest 7 Wetland Resources, Inc. WRJ# 12174 WETLAND FuNCTIONS AND VALUES AsSESSMENT Methodology The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains specifically to the wetlands and streams in the vicinity of the site, but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to vVestern Washington. Functional Components Wetlands in Western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are: stormwater control, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreational opportunities and education. The most commonly assessed functions and their descriptions are listed below. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided in the "Analysis" section of this report. Hydrologic Functions Wetlands often function as natural water storage areas during periods of precipitation and flooding. By storing water that otherwise might be channeled into open flow systems, wetlands can attenuate or modify potentially damaging effects of storm events, reducing erosion and peak flows to downstream systems. Additionally, the soils underlying wetlands are often less permeable, providing long-term storage of stormwater or floodflow and controlling baseflows of downstream systems. Stormwater storage capacity and floodflow attenuation are generally a function of the size of the wetland and their topographic characteristics. Water Q.ualiry Surface water quality improvement is another evaluated function. Surface runoff during periods of precipitation increases the potential for sediments and pollutants to enter surface water. Wetlands improve water quality by acting as filters as water passes through them, trapping sediments and pollutants from surface water. Ponded areas within depressional wetlands also allow sediments to drop out of suspension, thereby increasing water quality. As development increases, the potential for polluted water to reach wetlands and streams also increases. Unnaturally high inputs of pollutants, which are often found in urbanized areas, along with the size of the wetlands and the vegetation structure within them are the main limiting factors of this function. Wildlife Habitat Wetlands have potential to provide diverse habitat for aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species for nesting, rearing, resting, cover, and foraging. Wildlife species are commonly dependent upon a variety of intermingled habitat types, including wetlands, adjacent uplands, large bodies of water, and movement corridors between them. Human intrusion, including development within and adjacent to wetlands, and impacts to movement corridors are the most limiting factors for wildlife habitat functions. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below. Cr£tical Area Study Vuecrest 6 Wetland Resources~ Inc. WRl#l2174 Hydrology Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, states that criteria for designation as a wetland based on hydrology is met when "areas which are seasonally inundated and/ or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days 212.5 percent of the growing season, provided that soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetland. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5 percent of the growing season are non-wetlands." Field indicators are employed in the determination that wetland hydrology parameters are met. BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FiNDINGS Wetland The on-site wetland is a linear depressional wetland located in the eastern and southern portions of the site. Vegetation within the wetland consists of a canopy of red alder (A/nus rubra, FAC) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata, Fae); with an understory of: salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FacW), lady fern (4tJ,yriumfili.xj'emina, Fae) edge (Carex sp., OBL), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW). Soils in this wetland are typically a black (2.5Y 2.5/1) silt loam from tl1e surface to eight inches below. The sublayer is a dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) silt loam with redoximorphic features present. Soils were dry to the surface during the September 2012 investigation. The dominance of species rated "Facultative" or wetter satisfies the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation in the areas mapped as wetland. Based on field indicators of hydric soils, it appears iliat the areas mapped as wetland are saturated to ilie surface for more ilian 12.5 percent of the growing season, thereby fulfilling wetland hydrology criteria in ilie absence of observed primary indicators of hydrology. This wetland meets all criteria for designation as a wetland. Non-Wetland The areas mapped as non-wetland are generally forested wiili a mixed canopy non- mature forest. Vegetation species wiiliin ilie forest generally include Western red cedary (Thuja plicata, Fae), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllu:m, FacU), red alder (4/nus rubra, Fae), Oso-berry (Oemleria cerasi.formis, FacU), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium, FacU), dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), and swordfern (Polystichum munitum, FacU. Non-wetland soils were typically a very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam wiili no redoxin10rphic features from the surface to ·3 inches below. From 3 inches to greater ilian 18 inches the soils changes to a dark yellowish brown (IOYR 3/4) silt loam with no redoximorphic features. These soils were dry during ilie September 2012 site visit. Based on ilie lack of field indicators, it appears that areas of ilie site mapped as non- wetland are not saturated to ilie surface for more than 12.5 percent of ilie growing season, iliereby not fulfilling wetland hydrology criteria. Critical Area Study Vuecrest 5 Wetland Resources, Inc. WRI#12174 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT Methodology On site, routine methodology as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997), was used for this determination, as required by the City of Renton. Under this method, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three sequential steps: I.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percentage cover). 2.) Ifhydrophytic vegetation is found, then the presence ofhydric soils is determined. 3.) The final step is determining if wetland hydrology exists in tl1e area examined under the first two steps. The following criteria descriptions were used in the boundary determination: Vegetation The vVashington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, states that "more than 50 percent of the dominant species in each stratum present must be rated "Facultative" or wetter to meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria". Soils The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997, states that hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (within 18 inches of the surface). The criteria for a "wetland soil" is that a hydric soil must support hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology indicators must be present. Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition and criteria for hydric soils. The soils underlying this site are mapped in the Soil Survey ef Kmg Count;y Area Washington as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The Alderwood soil unit is made up of moderately well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. In a representative profile, the surface layer and subsoil are very dark brown, dark brown, and grayish brov,rn gravelly sandy loam about 27 inches thick. The substratum is grayish-brown, weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated glacial till that extends to a depth of 60 inches and more. Soils included with this soil mapping make up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. Some areas are up to 25 percent Everett soils that have slopes of 15 to 30 percent, and some areas are up to 2 percent Bellingham, Norma, and Seattle soils, which are in depressions. Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is severe. Critical Area Study Vuecrest 4 Wetland Resources, Inc. WRl#12174 The areas of reduction areas identified as part of this averaging proposal, are generally natively vegetated and would have a limited lift of function from enhancement. Therefore buffer averaging is not proposed. The buffer averaging proposed is to average(reduce) 10,463 square feet of buffer adjacent to SE 186th Pl, the proposed stormwater tract, and Lots 9-11, 20, and 21. In order to meet the no net loss of buffer requirement, the applicant proposes 12,198 square feet of addition buffer adjacent to Lots 10, 12-17, 21 and along the south side of the Wetland and Stream corridor. The applicant will designate all the wetland, stream and associated buffers as a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) Tract. WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS-COWARDIN SYSTEM According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the classifications for the on-site wetland and streams are as follows: Wetland: Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Saturated. Streain: Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed. WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS-CITY OF RENTON Under the City of Renton's Critical Area Regulations in Renton's Municipal Code (RMC), Title 4 Chapter 3-050, the wetlands and streams within the vicinity of the subject site are classified as follows: Wetland -Category II The on-site wetland is a depressional wetland adjacent to the intermittent stream. This wetland is Classified as a Category II under the RMC 4-3-050(:M), since it is located at the headwater of the on-site stream and, as such, receives a standard buffer of 50 feet. Streain -Class 4 The intermittent stream originates within the on-site wetland near the southern property boundary and flows down the stream slope to the west. Stream B is a seasonal, non-fish bearing stream and, as such, classified under RMC 4-3-050(1) as a Class 4 stream and receives a standard buffer of 35 feet. In the city of Renton, Class 2-4 streams, regulated wetlands and their buffers are designated collectively as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPAs). As stated in RMC 3-50(E)4: The common boundary between a native growth protection area and the abutting land must be permanent/y identified. This identification shall include permanent wood or metal signs on treated or metal posts. Sign locations and size specifications shall be approved by the Ci!)!. Suggested wording is as fallows: ''Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law." Critical Area Stutfy Vuecrest 3 Wetland Resources, Inc. WRl#J2174 11. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functions and values; and Direct compensation of functions and values will he addressed by providing additional buffer of a similar composition to the reduction area at a 1: 1 rating. No impacts to existing functions and values of the wetland area expected by the proposed buffer averaging activity. w. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is not less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and In order to meet the requirements established for buffer averaging a greater than 1: 1 (reduction:addition) ratio is provided. The final buffer area will be slightly larger that prior to averaging. 1v. A site specific evaluation and docwnentation of buffer adequacy based upon 17te Science ef Wetland Buffers and Its Implications far the Management far Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAS 365- 195-905; or where the absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4- 9-250F are followed. The buffer evaluation method identified above provided provides detailed descriptions of buffer widths and overall effectiveness of protecting wetland and stream functions. Table 4 within the aforementioned docwnent described the differences between 10-meter and a 20-meter buffer. As described in tlie table, both buffer widths provide an approximate 60 percent sediment and pollutant removal and provide limited habitat values. The averaging proposal combined with the tree retention tract will more usable wildlife habitat and an, on average, wider corridor that allows wildlife to move freely into the forested steep slope area to the west. It is tlie opinion of WRI that given the increase of 1,735 square feet in overall buffer area, the proposed buffer averaging provides for an adequate width to protect tl1e wetland and stream. v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of tlie standard buffer or be less than twenty-five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and The minimwn proposed buffer width as part of this averaging activity is 25-feet, which is 50 percent of the standard 50-foot buffer. vi. Buffer enhancement in areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Critical Area Stud,-; Vuecrest 2 Wetland Resources, Inc. WRI# 12174 SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) conducted a site investigation on September 6, 2012 on a 9.31-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Smithers Avenue South in Renton, WA (portion of Section 31, Township 23N, Range 05E, W.M.). King County Tax Parcel #3123059048 is the subject property for this report. The purpose of this investigation was to identify any jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The investigation ·area is bordered by Morris Avenue South to the west, with residential development to the north, south and east. No structures are currently present within the boundary of the subject property. A temporary cul-de-sac associated with the terminus of Smithers Ave S is located in the north central portion of the site. The remaining portion of the site is forested and appears relatively undisturbed and is vegetated with a mixed canopy, non-mature forest. Topography of the site generally trends west with a slight depression near the eastern property boundary, a linear depression roughly paralleling the southern property line, and steep west aspect slope on the western half of the site. As part of this investigation, one wetland and stream were identified on the subject property. The wetland is located within the depressional areas on the eastern and southern portions of the site. It is classified as a Category II wetland and is designated a 50-foot protective buffer from its flagged boundary. In addition to the wetland, an intermittent non-salmonid stream flows through the western portion of the wetland boundary and down the steep slope. This stream is classified as a Class 4 and is designated a 35-foot buffer from its flagged boundary. In situations where wetland and stream buffers overlap, the more restrictive shall apply. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide the eastern two-thirds of the property into twenty-one single-family residential lots. Access for these lots will be from the continuation of Smithers Avenue S. In order to accomplish this development activity, the applicant is proposing buffer averaging per the provisions established in RMC Chapter 4- 3-050(1\.1)(6)(!), which requires: 1. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and The on-site wetland varies from slightly disturbed in its northern portion with yard waste and detritus from kid-related activities to less disturbed in its southern portion. As such vegetation in the northern portion has a higher concentration of invasive species and the southern portion is more native in composition. In addition, existing single-family residential development is located immediately adjacent to the east of the wetland and buffer area. Critical Area Stuqy Vuecrest l Wetland Resourcf!S) Inc. WRJ# 12174 SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS -COWARDIN SYSTEM WETLAND AND STREAM CL".SSIFICATIONS-C!TY OF RENTON WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS WETLAND FlJNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT WILDLIFE USE OF THIS REPORT REFERENCES CRlTICAL AREA STIUDY MAP ATIACHMENT: Fl.ELD DATA FORMS l 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 9 1/1 f, \#tb11d T(eso11rces, ll1c. ,f Delineation/ Mitigation/ Restoration/ Habitat Creation/ Permit Assistance CRITICAL AREA STUDY FOR VUECREST RENTON, WA WetlandResources, Inc. Project #12174 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 Prepared For: Harbour Homes by Geonerco Attn:Jarnie Waltier 1300 Dexter Ave Nm #500 Seattle, WA 98109 April 8, 2013 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax ( 425) 337-3045 MA y ? I ZG13 EXHIBIT 17 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton V uecrest Estates Wetland and S !ream Review Page4 April 3, 2014 Recommendations: We recommend that all wetland and buffer areas onsite be monitored for 5 years, once per year in the summer, as a condition of project approval. If non-native/invasive vegetation is observed, it should be removed immediately (by hand). The monitoring should also determine whether additional plantings or other contingency actions are recommended as adaptive management approaches, in order to preserve the baseline conditions of the critical areas. We recommend that the applicant submit a monitoring plan (which may be included in the revised CAS) prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits. We recommend that the applicant post a bond (financial guarantee) for this monitoring period. Comment6 The plans show stormwater discharging from the detention/water quality vault into the wetland/ stream buffer, approximately 40 feet to the northeast of the steep slope, at the beginning of the stream and the west end of the southern, linear wetland. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Earth Solutions NW; February 25, 2013)," the sloped areas along the western margins of the site would be severely susceptible to erosion, in our opinion." In high-gradient stream systems with potentially erodible soils, any additional water could cause erosion on the slope. This erosion would likely eventually affect downstream habitat and water quality, and could destabilize the slope during rain events. Given the high risk of erosion, the position of the stormwater vault and the proposed discharge point, and the presence of protected slopes ( 40% or greater slopes), an alternative design and/ or additional analysis are warranted. Recommendations: w·e strongly reiterate and support the City's previous recommendation in the ECRR to tightline the discharge down the slope for the Vuecrest project, preferably discharging into a stormwater conveyance system that has capacity to accept these flows. Although the applicant conducted analysis of the stormwater vault using the King County Runoff Time Series Model per City of Renton Code, we recommend re-analysis of the proposed stormwater vault capacity and associated metrics (discharge duration and peak flow discharges) using a different model such as MGS Flood or \Xl\X!HM if the proposed discharge to the wetland above the steep slope is retained as a design feature. In addition, should the proposed discharge point be retained as a design feature, greater detail concerning the outfall/ discharge structure, proposed energy dissipation, and other relevant detail should be provided by the applicant. Please feel free to call Darcey at (425)739-7977 or Kevin at (425) 739-7975 if we can answer any questions regarding our comments and recommendations. K \project \32300\32385C\Repons\Critical A.rcas Review Memo_2014_04U4.doc • • Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton Vuecrest Estates Wetland and Stnam Review Comment4 Page3 April 3, 2014 On page 3 of the CAS, the second sentence "Therefore buffer averaging is not proposed" should be amended to " ... buffer enhancement ... " Recommendations: Minor revision of the CAS to correct this discrepancy. Comments The buffer averaging proposal in the CAS has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RlvfC 4-3-050. Buffer averaging reduction areas on the project site are vegetated with native trees and contain an understory of native shrubs and some herbaceous groundcover. The buffer averaging addition areas contain similar vegetative communities as the reduction areas, and have approximately the same number of significant trees as the reduced areas (16-17 trees in each the addition and reduction areas). Non-native/invasive vegetation coverage is very low in the wetlands and buffers onsite. As such, the existing buffers and wetland areas are of moderate to high value. Adding plants could cause more disturbance to a natural and well-functioning system. For these reasons and the buffer averaging justification given in the CAS, it is our opinion that a wetland enhancement plan is not required to comply with Code, although the Environmental Committee Re,~ew Report (ECRR) (City ofRenton;July 15, 2013) recommends one in the Water (Wetland and Stream) Mitigation Measure #1. However, recommended monitoring (see below) may result in wetland or buffer enhancement actions as an adaptive management response to vegetative loss or introduction of non- native invasive species. Mitigation Measure #2 in the ECRR requests "a mitigation plan demonstrating enhancement of the areas where stream buffers are reduced." The review report says that a planting plan for reduced stream buffers is required, per RMC 4-3-050.LS.c.ii; however, this section of the code is for stream buffer reduction, not buffer averaging. As discussed in this comment above, it is our opinion that the buffer averaging proposal does not require a planting plan per the RMC. This is a moot point, as the stream is considered to be located only on the steep slope (not in the southern, linear wetland where buffer averaging is proposed). The existing on-site habitat consists of contiguous, forested habitat with very little invasive plant species coverage. Much of the wetland system is contained within this interior forested habitat, although residential development encroaches on the wetland to the northeast. The proposed development adjacent to reduced huff er areas will result in overall reduction of this habitat, fragmentation of the remaining forested habitat, and a significant increase in edge habitat. These alterations are likely to result in non-native/invasive vegetation (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, Scotch broom, etc.) invading the critical areas and their remaining buffers. K: \project\32300\32385C\Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0404.doc Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton Vuemst Estates Wetland and S !ream Review Page2 April 3, 2014 CAS indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the City's criteria for buffer averaging eligibility. The SSS assesses stream and stream buffer impacts, concluding that no loss of stream function or value will occur from the proposed project. Comment1 Otak biologists visited the site on February 28, 2014. We detennined that the wetland delineation is accurate as flagged in the field, and agree that the wetland meets the criteria for a Category 2 wetland under RMC 4-3-050(.M). Reco1nmendations: None Comment2 The CAS, SSS, and project plans show that the Class 4 intermittent stream begins in the southern, linear wetland and flows generally west ,,,,ithin the wetland until it reaches the 40% slope area. During Otak's site visit, we determined that a stream does not appear to be present v,,ithin this wetland; although it appears that water at times may flow through the wetland, no streambed, streambanks, or sorted gravels were observed. The stream begins at the 40% slope area, at wetland flag \Y./RA-27, and continues generally west down the steep slope (as shown on Sheet Cl)-showing defined channels, some incision, and generally indicative of a system ~th significantly more stream flow energy due to the much steeper gradients . \YI e agree v.':ith the characterization of the stream as an intermittent, non-salmonid-bearing stream and the Class 4 rating. Recommendations: We reconunend that the applicant revise the CAS and SSS (combining the content is acceptable), and remove the stream from plans where it is shown ~thin the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. This revision means that overall, only a very small area of the 35-foot-~de stream buffer will be impacted, in the southwest comer of the proposed development area. This stream buffer impact area is included ,,,,ithin the wetland buffer impact area, for which buffer averaging is already proposed. Comment3 According to the CAS Map (contained in the CAS), the proposal for wetland buffer averaging reduces the wetland buffers in four areas, totaling 10,468 square feet (sf). Buffer addition areas are proposed in four areas, three of which are labeled and total 12,195 sf. The applicant should revise the CAS Map to show the square footage of the triangular buffer averaging addition area inunediately east of Lot 10. Although a minor discrepancy, page 3 of the CAS calls out 10,463 feet of buffer reduction and 12,198 square feet of buffer addition in contrast ~th the quantities on the CASmap. Recommendations: i\:!inor revision of the CAS to correct these discrepancies. K: \prnject\32300\32385C\Reports\ Critical Areas Rc\·iew 7vferno_2014_0404.doc Technical Memorandum 10230 :N"E Points Dtive Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject Project No.: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner City of Renton Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist Kevin O'Brien, Senior Ecologist Greg Laird, PE April 3, 2014 Vuecrcst Estates Wetland and S tr earn Review 32385.C This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application ofVuecrest Estates (City of Renton LUA13- 000642) submitted by the applicant, Harbour Homes, to the City of Renton (City). The proposed V uecrcst Estates is located to the south of the intersection of South 4 7'h Street and Smithers Avenue South, and east of Morris Avenue South. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas documents and to provide comments regarding their applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. A separate geotechnical peer review was also conducted by Hart Crowser and the results communicated to the City. This memo addresses critical areas associated with wetland, stream, and buffers. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: • Critical Area Study for Vuecrest, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2013; • Supplemental Stream Study for Vuecrest Estates, prepared by \Vetland Resources, Inc., dated May 10, 2013; • Environmental Committee Review Report for Vuecrcst Estates, prepared by the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development, dated July 15, 2013; • Vuecrest Estates plans (Sheets Cl, C3-C7, and Nl), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, and received by the City on May 21, 2013. The Critical Area Study (CAS) and Supplemental Stream Study (SSS) identify an on-site Category 2 wetland per the RMC, and a Class 4 stream-also per the RMC-associated with the wetland. The K:\project\32300\32385C\Reports\Critical Areas Rev:iew Memo_2014_04D4.doc EXHIBIT 16 LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Vuecrest Estates LUA13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD September 16, 10:00 PM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone# with area code Email NAME (including City & Zip) (optional) (optionol) • . . I • • [:u) 1 ·th. M r-t vb 1/'\;V1J WA er~ ~\c,ll-Q.V ·, vc-,, f\.l LZ., J<. ~"" K_( ,c~,, /tf ff I Iv 5-/;7'1 r;J,.,, f ~?Kt 1Nu < Owe,v TZ. e.<=5 e 0 3 '/ z I (,2 N;:, A ... c' s (..J -< e'ktn-1? 1"8 ( le, c~~L ;,,;;:-:ie',-Z.::o N '-(1&., 7Klu 0,'r'",.,, !M!. @cr~/11 lJ A4 <p;j/C, . I I LJ_1c /1 AcrJS orJ 47i I SM1Tr-11::.e,s-Av&-S Q•JtDN cfr1:,6C:':J-ZD::., 114-7,:;-4s-e (/ {,(( h,AY'. ',ufi QJ..o--f l'<-12.1 DJ.DQ%HJSs~ 123 :Tl ·Ri :s i-1-ST' 1 ~-,J"t'"Q....., C' --I '6 u-:, <----z.o z 2'-1-)->-r 7----::, d I< ?t 'I-/ t?;,fi f#.V . ( c:>"'"""\ -J cJ,M 1c Ua /fz; ,-/yl// )). 3 yr-~5+-~0 Se.~_~,4ft/o-;; ,,J..c..{;, 3 I ') 8 (J V · \"j" \+~ rQ ~,c-k,,u,,/70,-,_... ..j\~ Co"'~~~ -· ~ . I ~ 9'60 55 <?S5 S . 4-8 ~-Rev' ~ 1, 1-A l/-2 s· -z 2 e, -Lf-Lft '+ _j I Vv\ { 0-A.@ ~vl-v\l\Ci 1 \ cl l(c:,, \._ t:>10-l \I\.._ % l 2-(V._?J"" ' ;~ -~ ( ~,__~-,_ \"'6 L ') <; l{2.-S-7q 3 ·'---/ I I 7 ( LL 0 2~ (\.,~':, ~l . C£l'- ----//!_4<-•1 ~ -;11 /1-tJZ_ < N .{ 2--W/f 14{,,f'.-r!_c" .rfl«. ::;· t.L~ ;;g.,~5-'/xs-,27 7 ¢?& 7 -~)· ec·· ';!JlH L;::~~-"'"' -V R~ ~V\~ Li CI 7 [~ ,-~rE-A A-vt' \ t.r 2. c:; fl.? (;-(, '7 ~ I I~ /\'-"'-y\ ;;) C.-'.,\ \iv,./1,J~•>, V cJl'11 ('"1 v--, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 AGENDA COM.MENCING AT 10:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Vuecrest Estates PROJECT NUMBER: LUAB-000642, ECF, PP, M PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 20-lot subdivision with two category two wetlands and a class 4 stream. The site contains three different zones, Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1), Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R- 8) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14). Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. The subject property is located near the dead end of Smithers Ave. S, parcel number 3123059048. The site is 9.03 acres in size, of which 6.04 acres of is located in the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed to limit development to the R-8 portion of the site. The 21 lots would result in a density of 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,532 square feet to 7,246 square feet. In addition to the 21 lots 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, and access. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The site is currently vacant with 401 trees. 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is proposed for project completion. The applicant has proposed to retain 42 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a stormwater report with the application. HEX Agenda 09-16-14 DEPARTMENT OF COMr NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE: Project Name: Owner: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: September 16, 2014 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd #1; Tukwila WA 98188 Jamie Waltier; Harbour Homes; 1441 N 34th St #200; Seattle WA 98103 Maher Joudi; DR Strong Consulting Eng; 10604 NE 38 1h Pl, Suite 232; Kirkland WA 98033 LUAB-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. The application includes a a request for Modification of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of a 9.31 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The proposed density is 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped, except for a paved, temporary cul-de-sac. 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 ---------------------- 405,395 sf [9.31 acres] (263,328 sf [6.06 acres] to be developed) Project Location Map HEX Report 13-000642, Fino/ City of Renton Department of Can VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY ,ity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report WAH-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 8. 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: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Report to the Hearing Examiner Neighborhood Detail Map Zoning Map Talbot Urban Separator Area Map Preliminary Plat Plan Public Comments Topography Map Tree Cutting/ Land Clearing Plan Replacement Tree Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Technical Information Report, Revised Generalized Utility Plan Environmental Determination Mitigation Measures Format and Legal Description Review Wetland Stream Review Critical Area Study Supplemental Stream Study Page 2 of 18 Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents Geotechnical Addendum Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Response to AES Geotechnical Review Email: AES report correction Geotechnical Review Slope Setback Response Email: Slope Setback Protected Slope Analysis Geotechnical Report Storm Water Detention Vault Proposed Stormwater Vault Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 31: Environmental Review Committee Staff Report C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s} of Record: Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd #1; Tukwila WA 98188 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single- Family (RSF), Residential Medium Density (RMD) 3. Zoning Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Residential 1 (R-1), Residential 8 (R-8), Residential 14 (R-14) Undeveloped 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Talbot Ridge residential development (R-1 and R-8 zones) b. East: c. South: d. West: HEX Report 13-000642, Final Reserve at Stonehaven and low-density residential development (zoned R-8) Low-density residential development (R-1 and R-8 zones) Talbot Park and Campen Springs residential developments (R-1 and R-14 zones) City of Renton Department of Cor VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY Hearing Date September 16, 2014 6. Access: 7. Site Area: D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation 1ity & Economic Development T Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Page 3 of 18 Smithers Ave S via Main Ave S 405,395 sf [9.31 acres] {263,328 sf [6.06 acres] to be developed) Ordinance No. Date 5100 11/01/04 5100 11/01/04 3268 12/13/78 E. PUBLIC SERVICES, EXISTING CONDITIONS: 1. Utilities a. Water: This site is located in the Renton Water Service area, but the nearest water service is provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District (SCWSD). b. Sewer: The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City of Renton. There is a sewer main and a manhole at the south end of Smithers Ave S. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are no storm drainage improvements at the end of Smithers Ave S. Drainage must be directed to an existing system located to the west in Talbot Rd S. 2. Streets: There is a public street terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Smithers Ave S. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department provides emergency services. F. PROJECT NARRATIVE: In 2013, the project proponent submitted a land use master application for subdivision of a 9.31 acre property located in the Talbot Planning Area of South Renton [Exhibit 2]. During the application review, the City of Renton required additional information to be submitted. A "hold" was placed on the project review on July 16, 2013. The requested additional information was submitted and project review recommenced on July 22, 2014. The project was revised with the following results: the number of lots was reduced by one to 20, lot sizes changed, the primary access road was realigned slightly to the east, a rockery retaining wall was eliminated from the top of a steep slope, grading on the west side of the portion of the site to be developed was modified, and the surface water control plan revised. The project is subject to State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) compliant environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision. The project proponent submitted a request for Modification of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. The site has two Category 2 wetlands, one of which connects to a class 4 stream. The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/ac), Residential 8 (8 du/ac) and Residential 14 {14 du/ac) [Exhibit 3]. Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.06 acre (263,328 sf] portion that is zoned R-8 is proposed to be developed. The proposed density would be 4.23 du/ac Subdivision into 20 lots would result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree retention. HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com ... unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 4 of 18 The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a "dead end" road from the intersection of SE 186'h St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information Report with the application. Goals, objectives, and policies of the Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single-Family (RSF), and Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations are implemented by the regulations and standards of the Residential 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14 zones respectively. The property is also in the Talbot Urban Separator of the City [Exhibit 4]. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter Z Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards Z. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations b. Section 4-3-110: Urban Separator Overlay Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations b. Section 4-4-070 Landscaping c. Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan -General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com,,,unity & Economic Development VUfCREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date September 16, 2014 H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element I. MODIFICATION REQUEST Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; fCF, PP, MOD Page 5 of 18 The project proponent submitted a request to modify Renton Municipal Code 4-6-060 "Street Standards," Section H, "Dead End Streets." RMC 4-6-060H states that cul-de-sac turnarounds and dead end streets are only permitted when there are demonstrable physical constraints and no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. In addition, this section of the RMC further requires a secondary access be provided when the primary access is a dead end street longer than 700 feet. The proposed project site is located at the end of an existing dead end street in excess of 700 feet. The proposal asks for approval of a temporary cul-de-sac on an extension of this street. The length of the extended dead-end street would be approximately 2,364 feet, from the point at which it becomes a dead end at Main Avenue South (SE 102nd St) and SE 186th St to the new street end within the proposed project. Currently, there are 99 lots that are accessed by this dead end street. Previous land use actions assumed a second access would eventually become available. The Renton Fire Department does not support the current request to continue modification of the RMC requirement for a secondary access, due to concerns for public health and safety in the event of an emergency situation. The Department of Community and Economic Development also does not support the modification request because the project proponent has not demonstrated that there are insurmountable physical constraints and/or future connection to the wider system is not possible. (For additional discussion and staff recommendation, see Section K. 9 "Impact on Public Services -Fire," below) 1. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The project proponent submitted a land use master application for a preliminary plat subdivision of a 9.31 acre site into 20 lots and 6 tracts [Exhibit SJ. The tracts are for storm drainage, tree retention, and critical areas (protected slopes, wetlands, and a stream). The proposal would have a density of 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. 2. The land use master application includes a request to modify the Renton Municipal Code 4-6-060H to allow access by a dead end street longer than 700 feet, without a secondary access. Staff recommends that the Modification request be denied, although the decision lies with the Hearing Examiner. 3. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the land use permit master application for review on May 21, 2013, and determined the application complete on June 7, 2013. The project complied with the 120-day review period. The project was placed on "hold" on July 16, 2013, due to the requirement that a secondary geotechnical study be completed. The hold was removed, upon submittal of additional information, on July 22, 2014. There were numerous written comments submitted [Exhibit 6]. 4. The City required stormwater to be conveyed from a vault to an existing stormwater system at the bottom of the protected slope by means of a 12-inch diameter pipe. This conveyance on the protected slope meets the requirements for an exemption from the Critical Areas Regulations. 5. The proposed plat would be located south of Smithers Ave S, south of S 47th St. 6. The property has Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single-Family (RSF), and Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan land use designations, the policies of which are implemented by the regulations and standards of the Residential 1 (R-1), Residential 8 (R-8), and HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com, .. unity & Economic Development VUECRE5T ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Hearing Examiner Stoff Report LUAH-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Page 6 of 18 Residential 14 (R-14) zoning classifications, respectively. Only that portion of the property designated RSF and zoned R-8 is proposed for development. The RSF designation is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. 7. The proposed residential lots would range in size from 4,500 sfto 6,650 sf. 8. The site is not developed, with the exception of a paved temporary cul-de-sac, located at the terminus of Smithers Ave Son the north portion of the property. 9. The following are proposed lot sizes and approximate dimensions for Lots 1-20 and Tracts A through E: Lot Size Width Depth Lots (Minimum 50 ft., except (Minimum 4,500 sf) 60 ft. for corner lots) (Minimum 65 ft.) Lot 1 6,069 sf 51.23 feet 121.89 feet (average) Lot 2 6,008 sf 51.74 feet 124.43 feet (average) Lot 3 6,265 sf 51 feet 124.06 feet (average) Lot 4 6,205 sf 50.18 feet 124.25 feet (average) Lot 5 6,017 sf 50 feet 119.21 feet (average) Lot 6 5,936 sf 53 feet 112.90 feet (average) Lot 7 6,436 sf 50.42 feet 120.63 feet (average) Lot 8 6,650 sf 51.2 feet 132.72 feet (average) Lot 9 8,134 sf 90.08 feet 136.36 feet (average) Lot 10 4,972 sf 50 feet 95.45 feet (average) Lot 11 5,129 sf 50 feet 102.58 feet Lot 12 5,237 sf 60 feet (corner lot) 90 feet Lot 13 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 14 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 15 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 16 5,323 sf 60 feet (corner lot) 90 feet Lot 17 4,985 sf 67.32 feet (corner lot) 80 feet Lot 18 4,507 sf 56.25 feet 80 feet Lot 19 5,528 sf 61.33 feet (average) 88.96 feet (average) Lot 20 5,622 sf 64.54 feet (average) 88.84 (average) Tract A 16,426 sf Tract B 48,847 sf Tract C 18,513 sf Tract D 1,458 sf Tract E 24,017 sf 10. Tract A would be the site of a stormwater control vault. Tracts Band E would be sensitive areas (wetland) and Can area for tree retention. Tract D would be an open space. 11. Proposed Lots 1-8 would be directly accessed from Smithers Ave S; Lots 9 and 10 would be accessed from a new street, S 48'h Pl (SE 186'h Pl); Lots 11-16 would be accessed from the alley; and Lots 17 - 20 would be accessed from a private access easement (S 47'h CT), Tracts A and D would be accessed from Smithers Ave Sand Tract E from the alley. Tracts B, C, and F would be inaccessible to vehicles. 12. Topographically, the site has a wide-range of slopes, from 2 percent to greater than 75 percent within the proposed development area [Exhibit 7]. The steepest slopes are to the west of the development area and consist of slopes deemed to be "protected" by the Renton Municipal Code. This area would be preserved as a Native Growth Protection Area within Tract A. HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com,,,unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 7 of 18 13. There are 401 trees on the site that have been deemed "significant." Renton Municipal Code requires that, of these, 65 trees must be retained or replaced. The Tree Cutting/ Land Clearing Plan [Exhibit 8] indicates 42 trees would be retained; therefore, new trees must be planted. The plan proposes that 140 two-inch caliper replacement trees (280.8 caliper inches) would be planted on the site [Exhibit 9]. 14. The preliminary landscape plan indicates street trees would be planted along the public and private streets [Exhibit 10]. Additional landscaping is proposed although the landscape plan is currently "conceptual" only. A "Landscape Plan, Detailed," as per RMC 4-8-120L, must be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits. 15. A drainage report and drainage plan, ''Technical Information Report for Vuecrest Estates," Revised, July 15, 2014, by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., was submitted [Exhibit 11]. The report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site conditions, as required by the Department Community and Economic Development. 16. Although the project site lies within the boundaries of the Renton Water Service Area, the City does not have water service mains near the project site. Water service would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District from an existing water main located at the Smithers Ave S street end at the north portion of the property. A certificate of water availability from SCWSD must be provided prior to issuance of construction permits. 17. Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the City of Renton. [Exhibit 12]. 18. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on August 26, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Vuecrest Estate Preliminary Plat [Exhibit 13]. The DNS-M included 9 mitigation measures [Exhibit 14]. A 14-day appeal period commenced on August 29, 2014, and ended on September 12, 2014, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 19. No agency comments were submitted, but there were numerous public comments received during public comment period [Exhibit 6]. 20. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. K. CONCLUSIONS: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: Approval of land subdivision is based upon several factors. The following criteria have been established to assist decision-makers in the review of the plat. (.f Compliant; Note 1: Partially compliant; Note 2: Not compliant; Note 3: Compliance not yet demonstrated) 1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single-Family (RSF), Residential Medium Density (RMD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, although only the portion zoned RSF is proposed for development. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies if the project is developed compliant with all regulations and conditions of approval. Land Use Goal 1: Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed ,I growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. Land Use Goal 7: Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com ... Jnity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 8 of 18 ,/ a. Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b. Are walkable places where people can live, shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; Note 2 Staff Comment: While there would be a system af sidewalks throughout the plat, the context af the development precludes pedestrian access ta shopping or employment opportunities. ,/ C. Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; ,/ d. Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; ,/ e. Are varied or unique in character; ,/ f. Support "grid" and "flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where appropriate; ,/ g. Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; ,/ h. Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and ,/ I. Provide a sense of home. Land Use Objective LU-FF: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that: ,/ a. Supports transit by providing urban densities, ,/ b. Promotes efficient land utilization, and C. Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features. Note 1 Staff Comment: There are no existing_ built amenities at the location o[ the eraeosed eraiect. Policy LU-140. Pursue multiple strategies for residential growth including: ,/ Infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels in Renton's established neighborhoods Policy LU-146. Small-lot, single-family infill developments and plats should be supported as ,/ alternatives to multi-family development to both increase the City's supply of single-family detached housing and provide homeownership opportunities. ,/ Policy LU-158. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family Neighborhoods. ,/ Policy LU-159. Maximum height of structures should not exceed two (2) stories in single- family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-160. Designate land for Residential Single-Family land use where there is an existing pattern of single-family development in the range of four to eight units per net acre Note 1 and where critical areas are limited. Staff Comment: The proposed project is only partially compliant due to the presence of steep slopes and wetlands. Community Design Objective CD-D: New development should have an interconnected road network that supports multi-modal transportation. Note 2 Staff Comment: The proposed project is not compliant due to the lock of connection to a larger vehicular circulation system. Multi-modal transportation opportunities ore not available at this location. ,/ Policy CD-19. Land should be subdivided into blocks sized so that walking distances are minimized and convenient routes between destination points are available. ,/ Policy CD-20. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. ,/ Policy CD-22. During land division, all lots should front streets or parks. Note 2 Policy CD-25. Streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian or bike paths should be arranged as an HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Co ...... unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-00064Z; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 9 of 18 interconnecting network. Dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs should be discouraged. A grid or "flexible grid" pattern of streets and pathways, with a hierarchy of widths and corresponding traffic volumes, should be used. Staff Comment: Both a dead-end street and cul-de-sac ore proposed. See Section I "Modification Request" above. Policy CD-26. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate ,/ vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Future street connections should be clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections. ,/ Objective CD-E: New development and infill patterns should be consistent with a high quality urban form. ,/ Policy CD-34. Support project site planning in residential land use designations that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective: ,/ a. Buildings oriented toward public streets, ,/ b. Private open space for ground-related units, ,/ C. Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful, ,/ d. Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and ,/ e. Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property. Policy CD-39. Ensure quality development by supporting site plans and plats that ,/ incorporate quality building, development, and landscaping standards that reflect unity of design and create a distinct sense of place. ,/ Policy CD-40. Use design regulations to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation. ,/ Policy CD-41. Site design of development should relate, connect, and continue design quality and site function from parcel to parcel. .. Policy CD-42. Site design should address the effects of light, glare, noise, vegetation ,/ removal, and traffic in residential areas. Overall development densities may be reduced within the allowed density range to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Objective CD-F: Ensure privacy and personal space in residential developments. Note 3 Staff Comment: Assurance of privacy and personal space would be demonstrated with the development of individual lots. Policy CD-44. Development should be designed (e.g. site layout, building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a Note 3 high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Staff Comment: Assurance of high quality design and development would be demonstrated with the development of individual lots. Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project Note 3 designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Staff Comment: Assurance of privacy and quality of life would be demonstrated with the development of individual lots. Policy CD-50. Support site plans that transition to and blend with existing development patterns using techniques such as lot size, depth and width, access points, building location ,/ setbacks, and landscaping. Sensitivity to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods should be reflected in site plan design. Interpret development standards to support ground-related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private yards or substantial common space areas. ,/ Policy CD-53. Consideration of the scale and building style of near-by residential HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Co,," ,,unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report WA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 10 of 18 neighborhoods should be included in development proposals. Policy CD-57. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be ~ sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The portion of the site proposed for development is classified Residential 8 (R-8) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-llOA provides development standards for development within the R-8 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following development standards, if the project complies with all regulations and conditions_CJf appro_val. Density: The minimum density allowed in the R-8 zone is 4 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac). The maximum density permitted in the R-8 zone is 8.0 du/ac. Net density is calculated after the deduction of critical areas, areas intended for public rights-of-way, and private access easements. ~ Staff Comment: Based on gross site area of 263,328 sf (area zoned R-8}, there would be 39,956 sf deducted for public streets; 7,674 sf deducted for o private access rood and alley; 9,571 sf for sensitive areas (slope and wetlan_d}, therefore, the net area to be developed would be 206,127 sf (4. 73 ac). The 20 Jot plat would have a net density of 4.23 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the allowed range for the R-8 zone. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8, for parcels larger than 1 acre before subdivision, is 4,500 sf. A minimum lot width of SO feet for interior lots and 60 feet ~ for corner lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Staff Comment: As demonstrated in finding of fact 7, table abave, all lots would meet the requirements for minimum Jot size, depth, and width. --· Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: The minimum front yard setback is 15 feet; minimum side yard is 5 feet and, if along a public street, 15 feet for the primary structure; minimum rear yard is 20 feet. Note 3 Staff Comment: Setbacks are dimensioned on the Preliminary Plat plan and would be verified at the time of building permit review. The lots would be sufficient size to accommodate a single family home and meet the setback requirements. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet and 2-stories. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 sf in size in the R-8 zone is 35 percent Note 3 or 2,500 sf, whichever is greater. For lots 5,000 sf or less, the maximum coverage allowed is SO percent. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 75 percent. Staff Comment: The building standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: On-site Landscaping Requirements: Ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, including sideyards that abut public streets, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Landscaping Requirements Within the Public Right-of-Way: A landscaped area with the minimum dimension of 8 feet in width is required abutting Smithers Ave S, S 47'h Ct, and S Note 1 48th Pl (as per RMC 4-6-060F). Yards abutting public streets must have all pervious areas landscaped in accordance with RMC 4-4-070. HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com,,,unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-00064Z; £CF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 11 of 18 ~-----~------------·------------------------~ Stoff Comment: Street trees ore shown on the conceptual landscape pion. The conceptual landscape pion, however, does not specify plants within the required 10-foot wide on-site landscape area. Street trees should not be Callery Pear, as shown on landscape plan, due to their small size at maturity. Use only species/cultivars that attain a large-at-maturity size. Street trees along S 48" Pl should be different from those on Smithers Ave S, for visual variety and health of the ecosystem. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit a revised landscape plan, meeting all landscape requirements. The final detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Staff Comment: Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off-street parking for o minimum of two vehicles. 3. DESIGN STANDARDS: RMC 4-2-115 delineates residential and open space standards for development within the R-8 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following design standards if compliant with all conditions of approval. ----~---~------~~------------------------------~-- Note 3 Lot Configuration: One of the following is required: a. Lot width variation of 10 feet (10') minimum of one per four (4) abutting street-fronting lots, or b. Minimum of four (4) lot sizes (minimum of four hundred (400) gross square feet size difference), or c. A front yard setback variation of at least five feet (S') minimum for at least every four (4) abutting street fronting lots. Staff Comment: It appears from the proposed plan that option c, above, would be the only one available to meet the Lot Configuration requirement. Compliance would be demonstrated when building permit applications ore submitted. 1---------·-·--------------------·-----·---·--------~-..~---______________ __,, Note 3 Garages: The minimization of the visual impact of garages contributes to creating communities that are oriented to people and pedestrians, as opposed to automobiles. One of the following is required: 1. Recessed from the front of the house and/or front porch at least 8 feet, or 2. 3_ 4. 5. 6. Located so the roof extends at least 5 feet (excluding eaves) beyond the front of the garage for at least the width of the garage, plus the porch/stoop area, or Alley accessed, or Located so that the entry does not face a public and/or private street or an access easement, or Sized so that it represents no greater than 50 percent of the width of the front fa~ade at ground level, or Detached. The portion of the garage wider than 26 feet across the front shall be set back at least 2 feet. Staff Comment: Building plans, which would be used to determine visual impact of garages, hove not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated}. HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com,,,unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 12 of 18 Primary Entry: Entrances to houses shall be a focal point and allow space for social interaction. One of the following is required: 1. Stoop: minimum 4 feet by 6 feet and 12 inches above grade, or Note 2. Porch: minimum 5 feet deep and 12 inches above grade. 3 Exception: An ADA accessible route may be taken from a front driveway. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). Fa~ade Modulation: Buildings shall not have monotonous facades along public areas. One of the following is required: 1. An offset of at least one story that is at least 10 feet wide and 2 feet in depth on Note fa,ades visible from the street, or 3 2. At least a 2-foot offset of second story from first story on one street-facing fa,ade. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated}. ----~- Windows and Doors: Windows and front doors are an integral part of the architectural character of a house. Windows and doors shall constitute 25 percent of all fa,ades facing Note street frontage. 3 Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). ·--- Scale, Bulk, and Character: Neighborhoods shall have a variety of home sizes and character. Abutting houses shall have differing architectural elevations. Both of the following are required: 1. A minimum of three differing home models for each ten contiguous abutting homes, and Note 2. Abutting houses must have differing architectural elevations. 3 Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated}. Roofs: Roof forms and profiles are an important architectural component. One of the following is required: 1. Hip or gabled roof with at least a 6:12 pitch for the prominent form of the roof Note (dormers, etc.) may have lesser pitch, or 3 2. Shed roof. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). Eaves: Eaves and overhangs act as unifying elements in the architectural character of a Note house. Both of the following are required: 3 1. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least 12 inches with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least 5 inches deep on the face of all eaves, and HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Ca,,,,,,unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUAB-000642; £CF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 13 of 18 Note 3 Note 3 2. Rakes on gable ends must extend a minimum of 2 inches from the surface of exterior siding materials. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used ta evaluate design af entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated}. Architectural Detailing: Architectural detailing contributes to the visual appeal of a house and the community. If one siding material is used on any side of the dwelling that is two stories or greater in height, a horizontal band that measures at least 8 inches is required between the first and second story. Also, one of the following is required: 1. Minimum 3-1/2 inch trim surrounds all windows and details all doors, or 2. A combination of shutters and minimum 3-1/2 inch trim details all windows and minimum 3-1/2 inch details all doors. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated}. Materials and Color: A variety of materials and color contributes to the diversity of housing in the community. Abutting houses shall be different colors. Color palettes for all new dwellings, coded to the building elevations, shall be submitted for approval. Additionally, one of the following is required: 1. A minimum of 2 colors shall be used on the building (a main color with different trim color is acceptable), or 2. A minimum of 2 different siding materials shall be used on the building. One siding material shall comprise a minimum 30 percent of the street-facing fa~ade. If masonry siding is used, it shall wrap the corners no less than 24 inches. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design af entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated}. 4. TECHNICAL SERVICES: There are technical issues related to the preliminary and final plat that must be addressed prior to recording the plat. These issues have been clarified in comments from the Department of Community and Economic Development and are included in Exhibit 15. 5. CRITICAL AREAS: There are protected slopes, wetlands, and a stream located within proposed sensitive area tracts (Native Growth Protection Areas) on the site. The anticipated impacts of these areas have been addressed in technical reports and studies [Exhibits 16-27] and the Environmental Review Committee Report [Exhibit 31]. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all mitigation measures are met identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. A Critical Area Exemption is required to allow placement of a tight-lined stormwater conveyance system in an area identified as a "protected slope." Storm drainage piping is an activity deemed exempt from the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-0SOC.5.d.iv) as follows: Installation of new storm drainage lines in any geologic hazard area when a geotechnical report clearly demonstrates that the installation would comply with the criteria listed in RMC 4-3-0SOJ2b and that the installation would be consistent with each of the purposes of the geologic hazard regulations listed in RMC 4-3-0SOA4. Also, to qualify for the exemption, the report must propose appropriate mitigation for any potential impacts identified in the report. Staff Comment: The stormwater outfall high density polyethylene /HDPE} pipe must be secured to the ground by using anchors and concrete. At the top the pipe is secured to a vault and at the base it is secured with a slip joint and concrete block. The slip joint is needed because thermo-elastic expansion and contraction of the HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Co ...... unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUAlJ-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 14 of 18 pipe will be occurring due to differing temperatures. Typically HDPE above ground pipe installations need to hove anchors for each 50 lineal feet of pipe placed. The City has successfully placed numerous outfall projects of these types at steep, erosive slopes. These types of outfall installations reduce wet soil bearing weight, erosion, trenching and other negative effects on the steep slope while retaining more trees and vegetation that assist with stabilizing the slope. (See also Section 8 "Starmwater" be/aw) 6. COMMUNITY ASSETS: The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements: . Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130 states 30 percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. Staff Comments: There are approximately 401 trees deemed to be "significant" (over 6 inches in diameter) on the site. Of these, none have been determined to be dead, diseased, or dangerous. The tree retention formula, as per RMC 4-4-130H, for the R-8 zone, requires Note Z that 65.4 trees must be retained. The project proposal indicates that 42 trees would be retained. Therefore, 140 two-inch diameter trees, or 280.8 "replacement inches" are required. A tree replacement plan has been submitted indicating 69 two-inch diameter trees would be planted. Staff recommends the Replacement Tree Plan be revised ta show the proposed locations for replanting 140 two-inch diameter replacement trees. Tree protection measures during construction shall be required as per RMC 4-4-130H8 and 9. 7. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: RMC 4-3-110 provides requirements for development of land within the Urban Separator Overlay area of the City. Regulations listed below are applicable to Portions of the Urban Separator Outside the Established Contiguous Open Space Corridor or are Standards within the entire Urban Separator (the Talbot Urban Separator does not include a Contiguous Open Space Corridor). Dedicated Open Space: Fifty percent of the gross area of that portion of a property within ., the [Talbot] Urban Separator Overlay area shall be designated as a non-revocable open space tract. ., Uses Allowed: Uses shall be consistent with RMC 4-2-060 and 4-2-0708 (Residential-1 Zone) ., Forest/Vegetation Clearing: Clearing shall be limited to a maximum of 35 percent of the gross acreage of the area within the Urban Separator. ., Stormwater Management: Stormwater management shall comply with the Surface Water Design Manual. -·----., Private Access Easements: Private access easements and improvements shall be established at the minimum standard needed to meet public safety requirements. Landscape Plans: Landscape plans required in RMC 4-4-070 shall include retention/replanting plans as applicable, consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Note 3 Publication, "Going Native." Staff Comment: Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring replanting of vegetation ta replace vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) removed for installation of the storm water conveyance between the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property. This area lies within the Talbot Urban Separator. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if compliant with all regulations and conditions of approval. ., Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. N/A Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Staff. Comment: Depth of property limits this requirement. Note 3 Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Co ...... unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report WA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 15 of 18 -- streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Street lighting is required. Improvements that meet the street standards are required. Staff Comment: Street improvements along Smithers Ave Sand S 4B'h Pl. require a 53-foot wide right-of-way (a 55 foot ROW is shown on the plans). The proposed 28-foot wide road surface would allow on-street parking; 0.5 foot vertical curb; gutter; 8-foot wide landscape strip; and 5-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of the street. The primary access road, Smithers Ave, shall connect to S 4B'h Pl and be extended to the east to provide a second access from 102"" Ave SE. The completion of this street and its connection to 102"d Ave SE shall be a condition of project approval. The extended street, providing a second access to the proposed development, shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat. The applicant hos requested a street modification ta RMC 4-6-060H "Dead End Streets" (see Section I, "Modification Request" above, and 9 "Fire" below) . . Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. ,/ Staff Comment: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated R-8 on the City's zoning map. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourage residential infill development. 9. AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES: Police: Service would be provided by the Renton Police Department. ,/ Staff Comment: The Renton Police Department has commented that there would be minimal impacts from the project. Fire: Service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Staff Comment: Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees and that a second access be provided to the site in accordance with RMC 4-6-060H, which prohibits dead end streets longer than 700 feet in Note 3 length. Such dead end streets, of which Smithers Ave Sis one, require a second access to the development. (See Section I "Modification Request" above) Staff recommends as a condition of approval, a second access be constructed prior to recording the final plat. A Fire Impact Fee, based on the number of new single-family lots, is required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits, in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. The 2014 Fire Impact Fee is $479.28 per new singlejamily residential unit. Schools: The proposed project is located within the Renton School District. Staff Comment: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School, and Lindbergh High School. ,/ These schools are not within walking distance of the proposed development. Transportation would be required. A School Impact Fee, based on the number of new single-family lots, would be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. The fee is assessed per single family residence. The 2014 fee for single-family residential units is $5,455.00 each. HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Co ...... unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 16 of 18 Parks: The proposed project would add residents who may use City of Renton Parks and Recreation facilities. ~ Staff Comment: Although there would be no significant impacts ta the City of Renton Park System anticipated from the proposed project, a Park Impact Fee is required af all new residential development. The Park Impact Fee shall be paid prior ta building permit issuance. The 2014 Park Impact Fee is $963.01 per new single-family residence. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: This 20 lot subdivision is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site foils within the Flow Contra/ Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The site is subject to full drainage review. The Technical Information Report (TIR}, Revised doted 7/15/2014, was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers [Exhibit 11]. Additional reports [Exhibits 28-29] provided information about the proposed vault. The project is required to provide detention and water quality under the ~ current King County Surface Water Manual. The engineer hos provided o design for a combined detention and water quality vault to be located an Tract A af the site. A tight lined starmwater conveyance system shall be utilized ta transport discharged stormwater from a vault to an existing system at the bottom af the protected slope (Tract F}. A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing system shall be submitted prior ta issuance of construction permits. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required for the grading and clearing of the site since it exceeds one acre. The surface water system development fee is $1,120.00 per lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Water: The project would be served by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District (SCWSD). Staff Comment: The project proponent shall verify that the SCWSD is willing to provide water service to the development and the project proponent must obtain a certificate of water availability from SCWSD and provide it to the City prior to construction permit issuance. An extension of the SCWSD water main will be required and plans for the extension shall be reviewed and approved by both the SCWSD and the City of Renton. A water main improvements final plan, as approved by the SCWSD, shall be provided to the City. A ~ separate agreement between the SCWSD and the City may be required prior to issuance of utility construction permits. Water main extension within the interior roads will be required to provide fire protection and domestic water services to all lots within the proposed plot. The number and location of the fire hydrants must be approved by Renton Fire Prevention Deportment. There shall be o minimum 10-foot separation between water lines and other utility lines. A Valley General Hospital -South Talbot Hill Water SAD fee may be applicable. This requirement would be required prior to issuance of construction permits. Sanitary Sewer: The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City of Renton. Stoff Comments: Sanitary sewer is provided by the City of Renton. Civil engineering plans will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Sewer main extension within ~ the interior roads will be required along with a sewer stub for each lot within the proposed plat. In anticipation of development occurring to the east of the proposed project, staff recommends o condition of approval requiring on easement be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Com,,,unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13:000642; ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date September 16, 2014 Page 17 of 18 at the time of recording the final plat. There shall be o minimum 10-foot separation between sanitary sewer lines and other utility lines. Civil engineering plans for the sewer main extension must be approved by the District and o copy of the approved plans must be submitted to the City. A Sanitary Sewer System Development Fee {SOC) is required. It is based on the size of the domestic water meter. Current sanitary sewer fee for o %-inch or o 1-inch water meter is $1,812.00. These fees ore assessed and payment is collected at the time of issuance of the construction permit. Transportation: Impacts to the city transportation system are expected due to increased vehicle trips to and from the proposed project. v' Stoff Comments: Impacts from the development on the transportation system shall be mitigated by payment of Transportation Impact Fees. The 2014 Transportation Impact Fee rote is $1,430.72 per single family house. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. L. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat and Critical Areas Exemption, as depicted in Exhibit S, subject to the 8 conditions below. Staff recommends denial of the request for modification of RMC 4-6-060H (dead end road longer than 700 feet without a second access). 1. The applicant shall comply with nine the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated August 26, 2014 [Exhibit 14]. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, meeting all landscape plan submittal requirements of RMC 4-8-120L. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Street trees shall not include Callery Pear and trees on S. 481 h Pl shall be a different type from those on Smithers Ave S. 3. The Replacement Tree Plan shall be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting 140 two-inch diameter replacement trees. 4. Vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) shall be planted to replace vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between the stormwatervault and the west property boundary of the property. Type and quantities shall be sufficient to ensure erosion control in the protected slope area. 5. The primary access road, Smithers Ave S, shall connect to S 481 h Pl and be extended to the east to provide a second access from Main Ave S (102'' Ave SE) at its intersection with SE 186'h St. The completion of this street and its connection to Main Ave S shall be a condition of project approval. The street type shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department. The extended street, providing a second access to the proposed development, shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat. 6. A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing downslope storm water control system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits. 7. A Homeowners' Association shall be incorporated for maintenance and equal and undivided ownership of the tracts, the private access road, and the alley. 8. An easement shall be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be at the time of recording the final plat. HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Co .. ,, .. unity & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date September 16, 2014 EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plat Approval expires seven (7) years from the date of approval. HEX Report 13-000642, Fino/ Hearing Examiner Staff Report LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Page 18 of 18 I ' l ' i I @~ ~ ~ • I a i ' I ~ ~ '~ I z ~ § ~ ' I ~~~ l ~~-g I I ~·~ ~ ~~o • r~ ii I Ji I ! ~f. ~ ' 1 ~z . Do ! ' . ~r;'i 1 Vil". ~ 1! ~ j i * I ~ii • I !j il r I ' ' ! ' ' ------La1.-~;;:==~= EXHIBIT 2 ~31V!S3 lS3~KHM ~ ,-< ~ fa, in ~ z "' "' E-< .... "' "' ..... IM CA SW41rSl ' J . .i ' ~ • ; • _. -~-·-~-~-- ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 lh,,,1o,c,., .. ",1~1ar,.ot,1e"'""''"'"°""oc ,,.,r. ..... , ....... , ... """''"'fo"""""" ,,.S..!<nlc<•,•"'"'~"1.t.J.-.,o,0!10,..t,,_ n,-,,...,~..,,ec.,..,1,,n,<;,,,.,,,,,:,o"''"'*' .... R-14 R-1 H3 -30 T23N RSE E 1/2 co RM-f. .. ! to. f ··· ·co co • I ' l • ' " :co I co ,,.., .\ l 5"711,Sl Bsotl,51 R-14 S50L\$1 i R-4 J3 -06 T22N RSE E 1/" 0 200 4JO 1-oW IF, 1.4,800 R-14 .... R-1Q ..... .i. ' "' N ..., N "' ':.a: a: l"1 ~ .... -8 ~ -SE..'l!Nj!i. ' -,·-·· i ' . ---'.!!!;'j~.fi •• ! .• " ,SE1fflt,$1 ' g t EXHIBIT 3 4.-3-HOC 2. Talbot Urban Separator: Talbot Urban Separator p,i{l;Q11 C4;· L~ffl .-. Urbr.n "S<'lr,: :£at or F,!:;;1,HY.1--i;y (Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005) EXHIBIT 4 (Revised 4/11) . / r-· ~~----: I ~~~-~~-~-~--=~[--~=~~---~~ ~J:, ! ' ~ 1111 IIIIQll"lllllll lllllllllllaQ ~b -~ft-t-t++tt+tt-t-ttt-ctt-i-,M ~IJ ~i,..: g I Ji I:;:~! 9 11iu,ilua1111 • zt9000-nvm s31'f153 1S3~::>::3M 11 _., ... _ ... __ "" ~l<""~ltl!. ' ' I -("(I ! ! EXHIBIT 5 The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association 17701108'" Ave. SE, Box 434 Renton, WA 98055 reserveatstonehaven@g ma ii. com Re: Neighborhood Opposition Notification Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 I 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. S. I Parcel 3123059048 August 14, 2014 Ms. Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Higgins: PUBLIC COMMENT LETIERS 95 Pages Entire Document Available Upon Request The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, a community of 36 homeowners and taxpayers within Renton city limits continues to be strongly opposed to the application for, and approval of, the project named 'Vuecrest Estates" -Land Use Number LUA 13-000642, ECF, PP -which was recently re-activated after a year on hold. The project would be at the end of an already densely-developed dead-end one-way-out access road -jeopardizing the safety and security of our families and the property values of our homes. It adds bottlenecks, traffic and noise as well as burdens on the water main systems --with a potential flow rate which may not be sufficient for peak firefighting demand and puts at risk homeowners and the ability of fire and rescue response. Finally, the project is in violation of wetlands protections and environmental common sense. The proposal is simply too large for an extremely sensitive environmental area. We and our neighboring residents continue to request denial or substantial limitation of this development as currently proposed. We are requesting the following: 1. Denial of the project, or significant reduction to the scale of the project plan. 2. Denial of exceptions to distance limits for single street access for fire department response. 3. Denial of the application for Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). The impact continues to be significant and is still not mitigated in the current proposal. 4. Reduction by at least five additional home sites which are violating critical areas and wetlands-- and needs significantly greater retention of trees and wildlife habitat. 5. Greatly increased scope of buffer protection around critical wetland and stream areas. 6. Detailed plans to mitigate traffic, parking, safety and access issues. 7. Detailed plans to assure safe fire/rescue and water main capacity which,--.. ~--•-· ----· , ...... · EXHIBIT 6 Reserve at Stonehaven HOA -Opposition to LUA 13-00064 ,~ I !:!I • fi 1' ' ( l ' J ___ _ ?t9000-£LVnl S31V!S3 lS3c103M EXHIBIT 7 I I 1 L ... , .i, d I ~ I § ' Hp ~1ill11! ~P!!!1::I! dm 1 11 I i II 11 ; I e : : ~ I i XO X / / -----~- Zt9000-£~Vnl S31V1S3 153~:J]M EXHIBIT 8 ·~--~~~ 5NOl~Ji3ij EXHIBIT 9 "111 " " 0 ' - '·! ' ' ----' = !:ii = " ~ EXHIBIT 10 I ,), < 3 ! ~ ' < ! :;; ~ .... "' ~ ;. m >< ::c 1-1 D:I 1-1 -I .... l'J ~ -- SE l/ 4 SEVUECREST ESTATES C, IUI .. I Irr( . .1.1 r, ~!.:r ------------ ·-· ~ ""'"""' ,~:;:~7-•. =w• 17 -, 18 !11 15 1 ~-1 I 14 ' 111 i 19 .\,-· \ \ 0, 20 --, ' '-, I I --.:,·-,,::-,-~ , ' ' 0 , 11, 10 I , / I . ' ' , / 11 J, -- -~ -... •• ;--•l ---, / ' /, , __ / I TRACT•o• ;· -- rnACT'"C'" -- --* I .:::. I ~ .. ..::.:.. / / -/ i>m CITY OF ~ RENTON "'"""'9/<Ju'"'"of"ub',~-Oo,at. VUECREST EST A TES PREUMlNARY PLAT ._ UTlJ1lES FLIN DRS PAO.ECT NO. 12102: @ NORTH e~ ,,..,,._.,,:,,, DEPARTMENT OF COMM-.. ITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUAB-000642 Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes Vuecrest Estates PROJECT OESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 21 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 4800 BLOCK OF SMITHERS AVENUE 5 City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement {EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030{2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 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: /; ' .. I-.....__,------ Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department August 29, 2014 AUGUST 26, 2014 Date EXHIBIT 13 Fire & Emergency Services C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development &' /2r,, Ir r1 Date Date DEPARTMENT OF C01v1MUNITV AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUAB-000642, ECF, PP Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into~ 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is correspondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on- grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat...," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'A'. 3. A Homeowners' Association {HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore, the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. EXHIBIT 14 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. 7. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 8. Native Growth Protection Easements 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners' Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements. This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 9. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. ERC Mitigation Measures DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M June 20, 2013 Elizabeth Higgins Bob Mac Onie Vuecrest PP, LUA13-000642 Format and Legal Description Review I have reviewed the above referenced final plat submittal and have the following comments: There is a substantial and long standing encroachment over the southwesterly portion of proposed Tract 'C'. This issue needs to be remedied prior to final plat approval. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUAB-000642 and LND-10-0501, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. EXHIBIT 15 h :\ced\pl anning\current planning\projects\2013 projects\ J 3-000642 .elizabeth \tee hr Page 2 of3 06/20/2013 The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note !!!l easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator. Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Remove references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be h:\ced\planning\currcnt planning\proj ccts\2013 projects\ 13-000642.elizabeth\techn ical ::,ervices comments. doc Page 3 of3 06/20/2013 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. Please provide a label, e.g. Tract 'G' for the balance of the parcel being subdivided. Provide appropriate conveying language for the Tracts created. For those belong to the HOA: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract(s whatever) is/are hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners' Association (HOA). In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract(s) previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract(s whatever). The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat or reference to a separate recording instrument detailing the same. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner(s). h :\ced\p!anning\currcnt planni ng\proj ects\2013 projects\ 13-000642.el izabeth \tcchn ical services comments.doc / / L,UA 11 -DC( Y 2- City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APP LI CATION i:f ' ' . ' ' : \' PROPERTY OWNER(S} PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: 'Sc.\..t\..e.1 d-er-r-\oMe-S, I. 1 L, \, L \Ju e..C.rc..St-Es-+t._ -\-e.5 ADDRESS: 6 5 ) 0 Sow~Cb'\,:tv-, E \vd . .:l:t \ PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: c1TY T\J ~ w·, \ "'-ZIP: C/8) 98 y 7 'I, 'f-. S,, .. :;+n~/3 A.ve.. S. R.~.,. n,,....,, w A-16oS5 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (?o~ d-, '-f 8-;2"( 7 \ APPLICANT (if other than owner) KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): ~I;;._ "'6 o5 '1 oi..J 8 NAME 0o.""'''t.. \)::,o,.. \~c.r EXISTING LAND USE(S): St'-R..-B COMPANY (if applicable): Hcv-\?o.Jr H ome..S PROPOSED LAND USE(S): S.P R-'5 ADDRESS: \L{Lj[ tJ. ~ Lf ti.,, .s+. 4F-~ EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ks r',/ e,, f,·,,_ I s,-,q/;: f"'""' Iv PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ~ ff/,c__ ZIP: <j,5/0] (if applicable) TELEPHONE NUMBER: (;;t<,§) 31s-'i,'13,o EXISTING ZONING: I<.-€ CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): s ....... c... SITE AREA (in square feet): NAME (I~ ~. a.. (:J Jo u.dl., ].03,:,2..\? s i=-. (\'.<.-55'0NLYJ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): 0 R. S·+,, ( it, E IJl'Jq 01['5\J . ., f'! , . ' DEDICATED: C/ (; 3'1, s-~ 'S ' ;::: . ADDRESS: //;£ CA /IE .i 8 tl.f /"-Le_ Sc,, te 2---32 J SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 0 CITY: J(;, K. /"-,.. .,\ ZIP: q8633 PROPOSED.RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4-/ A-, 2J'i Du.. C... TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) (4-2.S) ff l.. 7-3 N-3 21 ~. • uJ ,L ~ du +ro.J, L.0'" f1'1. c.. t!r , J NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 2-1 H:\CED\Data\Fonns-Templates\Sclf-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -l -03/11 PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) ~-~-----~----------~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 0 PROJECT VALUE: ,12 1 S 2__01 coo SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): ~. l.{00 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): ///It SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): i,/ J~ NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA 0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION l!I SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq_ ft_ sq_ ft_ sq_ ft. 211 sq. ft. PROJECT (if applicable): NI ti. 1lil WETLANDS '13 1 bO sq. ft. ---------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION ?, I , TOWNSHIP .7b'>, RANGE_,:;-, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Har-r-v 'I . Seh n e Id~ 'declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (pleasfcoheck one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or L.--4fi~ 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. dlo>.P ft h .. 1. o\l = Signature of:er/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Hat r-Y ,/ . ~/i >led& signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. ~e?f,.,2013 Dated JOHANNA M COLMAN NOTARY PUFJLIC STATE or WASHINGTON / /-. N ry Public in and for the State of Washington I t Notary (Print)7jV haHM--,?/. {!_e; / ;fU2 ,r_ , I i My appointment expires: 8 I) S-: ;Lo I ~ I I H:\CED\Data\Fonns-Templates\Sclf-Hclp Handouts\Planning\mastcrapp.doc -2 - Date 03/11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "C" OF CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER LUA-02-045- LLA, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20020823900003, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DRS ProjeclN6 12102 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VUECREST ESTATES 11.c PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a Proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your Proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the Proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your Proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your Proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your Proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary de- lays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your Proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your Proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. © 2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 1 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton, Washington A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Vuecrest Estates 2. Name of applicant: Harbour Homes, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Jamie Waltier 1441 North 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98103 (206) 315-8130 Contact Person: Maher A. Joudi, P.E. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10604 NE 38 Place, Suite 232 Kirkland WA 98033 425 827-3063 4. Date checklist prepared: May 15, 2013 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 spring 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 21 single-family residences. © 2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 2 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this Proposal. Critical Area Study: Wetland Resources, Inc. April 8, 2013 Supplemental Stream Study: Wetland Resources, Inc., May 10, 2013 Slope Stability Analysis: Earth Solutions NW LLC, April 10, 2013 Geotechnical Engineering Study: Earth Solutions NW LLC, February 25, 2013 Traffic Impact Analysis: Traffex, April 23, 2013 Level One Downstream Analysis: D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. April 22, 2013 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. SEPA Determination Preliminary Subdivision Approval Grading Permit Final Subdivision Approval Building Permit Other Customary Construction Related Permits 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 9.31 acres into 21 single-family lots with a proposed net density of 4.28 du per acre. Access to the subdivision will be from Smithers Avenue s. © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 23 City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 12. Location of the Proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a Proposal would occur over a range of area, 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 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The Site is located near the 4800 Block of Smithers Avenue S. © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 4 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General descri lion of the site ( circle one). Fla rolling, steep slopes, mountainous, o er. The majority of the developable site has slopes between 6 and 15%. The slope increases in the western third of the developable site to 15 to 30%. Generally, the land slopes from the east of the site to the west. A large portion of the site contains steep slopes near 50%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There is an isolated area, within the developable area, near the western lot lines nearing 23%. The steepest slope within the steep slope area is near 51%. 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) and 15- 30% (AgD), gravelly sandy loam. Additionally, see attached Geotechnical Report dated February 25, 2013. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. © 2013 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 5 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington Yes, there is an unstable slope located on the western edge of the property that is designated as a steep slope and will remain untouched. © 2013 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 6 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the site grading will be to construct the subdivision roads, utilities and homes. Approximately 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. (Excluding vault excavation) The net volume is approximately 6,639 c.y. of import. 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 70% of the developable 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 in accordance with requirements of the City of Renton. ©2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 7 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 2. AIR a. What types of emissions 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. © 2013 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 8 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 3. WATER a. Surface. 1. 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. Yes, there is a mild seasonal stream running through the southern portion of the property as well as a wetland located on the eastern edge of the site. 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. Yes, the residential homes and roads will be constructed adjacent to the described waters. 111. 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. © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 9 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington v. Does the Proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not to our knowledge. v1. 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. ii. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemi- cals .... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 1 O of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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. 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 © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 11 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington surface runoff during construction and after development. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, vine maple, black cottonwood other: (birch, poplar) _x_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, spruce, pine, other: shrubs grass (orchard grass) pasture crop or grain x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: _x_ other types of vegetation (Deer fern, blackberry, holly, scotch broom) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation within the development area will be removed at the time of development. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Zoning Code. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known or documented within the project area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. None proposed at this time. 5. ANIMALS © 2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 12 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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. 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. © 2013 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 13 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this Proposal? 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 HEAL TH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this Proposal? If so, describe. There are no known on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today and none will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. i. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. ii. Proposed measures to reduce or b. Noise control environmental health hazards, if any. Special measures are not anticipated. © 2013 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 14 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 1. 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 day-light 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. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 15 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The Site is currently undeveloped. The current use of adjacent properties is listed as follows: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential and forested area 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. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification is Residential, R-8 for the entire developable area. 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 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, the western portion of the site has an environmentally sensitive erosion area which will be left undisturbed. © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Jnc. SEPA Checklist Page 16 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 48 individuals will reside in the completed residential development (21 units x 2.3 persons per household = 48 individuals). J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No people will be displaced. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None. 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 21 detached single-family residential homes. Homes will be priced with a market orientation to the middle- income level homebuyer. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. © 2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers lnc. SEPA Checklist Page 17 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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 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. © 2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 18 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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? Soos Creek Park and Trail (Approximately 1.4 miles from the Site). Interurban Trail Site (Approximately 1.5 miles from the Site) 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 . 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 19 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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 Smithers Avenue S connecting to S 4ih Street. 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 1.1 miles southeast of the Site at the intersection of 1081h Ave SE and SE 192nd 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. ©2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 20 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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). Smithers Avenue S will be extended south into the Project. 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. Per attached Traffic Report, the proposed project is expected to generate 201 net new daily trips, 16 AM peak hour trips, and 14 PM peak hour trips. Peak hours will generally be 7 AM -9 AM and 4 PM -6 PM. 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. ©2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 21 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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. 16. UTILITIES a. b. Circle utilities currently available at the site: 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: Soos Creek Sewer: City of Renton Telephone: Century Link © 2013 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 22 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Clty of Renton Washington C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency is re- lying on them to make its decis};Jf · i I , ' ! \ Signature: DATE SUBMITTED: © 2013 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 23 of 23 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington July 22, 2014 Project No. 12102 CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NARRATIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VUECREST ESTATES The project is a proposed single-family residential development of 9.31 acres, known as Tax Parcel 3123059048 into 20 single-family residential lots. The property is located approximately at 4800 Block of Smithers Avenue S in the City of Renton, Washington. The Site is currently undeveloped. Project Contact Information: Developer: Engineer/Surveyor: Land Use Permits Required: -Preliminary Plat Approval -Final Plat Approval -Environmental Review Zoning and Density: Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98103 (206) 315-8130 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 620 71h Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 ( 425) 827-3063 Maher A. Joudi, P.E. -Grading Permit -Building Permit The property is divided into R-1 zone on the western portion, R-8 on the eastern portion, and there is a small portion zoned R-14 near the southwest corner of the site. The adjacent properties to the east are zoned R-8. The adjacent properties to the west are zoned R-14. The adjacent properties to the north are zoned R-8 on the eastern portion of the site and zoned R-1 on the western portion of the site. The adjacent properties to the south are zoned R-8 on the eastern portion of the site and zoned R-1 on the western portion of the site. The properties abutting the southeast corner of the site are zoned R-4. The Proposed Site will lie solely within the R-8 zone. All calculations for the project are based on the R-8 area of the site. Page 2 of 3 Current use of Site and existing improvements: The Parcel is currently undeveloped and heavily vegetated. Most of the existing vegetation and trees will be removed within the developable area. Special Site features: The Parcel currently consists of two Category 11 wetland areas, one located on the eastern edge of the property line and the other enveloping the southern area. The southern wetland connects to a Class 4 stream. This Class 4 stream exits the Parcel near the southwest corner of the site. The proposed lot lines adjacent to these critical areas are a minimum of 25 feet away. The closest area of work to these critical areas will be 20 feet. The Parcel also consists of a steep slope critical area. The steep slopes span the entire length of the Parcel, north to south, and begin near the center of the Parcel sloping towards the western property line. 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% and AgD, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes from 15-30%. A portion of the Site runoff travels west and is collected into a seasonal stream/wetland that eventually discharges into an existing conveyance system in Talbot Road South. The remainder of the runoff from the site sheet flows across the steep slope and into the Campen Springs Condominium conveyance system before entering the conveyance system in Talbot Road South. Proposed Use of Property: ?-l The proposed Project is the subdivision of 4.91 acres into 20" detached single-family residential~ per the City of Renton's subdivision process. This will result in a net density of~ dwelling units per acre. Lot square footages range from 4,500 to 8,134 s.f., with no lot sizes below the minimum 4,500 s.f. threshold set by the City. /Jr:.//~ Access, Tra~fic, and Circulation: The Project will locate its access road as depicted on the attached plan. Access to the subdivision will be from Smithers Avenue South via a 55' wide right-of-way. The proposed right of way will stub to the eastern property line for future extension. An alley is proposed to serve lots 12 through 16. The alley will also serve as a secondary emergency access should blockage occur within the main right of way. A temporary turn around easement is proposed at approximately station 15+00, in the vicinity of lots 8, 9 and 12 and Tract "A". The easement will encroach on these three lots and tract in the interim, but will be extinguished upon extension of the roadway. The lots are sized and situated such that they can accommodate home construction with the easement in place. Minimum driveway length will be 20 feet, with a minimum building setback of 1 O feet off the easement. Page 3 of3 Land to be Dedicated to the City: All of the right-of-way will be dedicated to the City. The area of public streets will total 38,606 s.f. There will also be two sensitive area tracts along with a storm drainage tract that will be dedicated to the City. Proposed Site Improvements: An existing water main in Smithers Avenue S will be tapped to serve the proposed residences. Existing Sanitary Sewer line on Smithers Avenue S will accommodate the discharged waste. All storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed by a typical catch basin/pipe network to a storm detention vault located in Tract A. A tightline will be constructed down the steep slope and tie directly into the Campen Springs Condominium conveyance system. 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 3,396 c.y. of cut and 10,035 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net fill volume is approximately 6,639 c.y. Tree Inventory: 53 of the existing 401 significant trees on site will be retained. The required number of trees to be retained is 65.4 trees. Therefore, 148.8 replacement inches are required. Street trees, trees added to the critical buffers, and trees added to the outer edges of the property will be a minimum 2-inch caliper tree to meet the City's tree retention requirements. See tree retention spreadsheet. Estimated Construction Cost & Proposed Market Value: The approximate construction cost is typical of a subdivision of this size and nature totaling approximately $891,625.00. The estimated fair market value of the proposed project is approximately $2,520,000 ($120,000/lot). 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. 263,328 square feet (R-8) 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: 38,606 square feet 0 square feet 9,571 square feet 2. 48,177 square feet 3. 215,151 square feet 4. 4.94 acres 5. 20 2/ units/lots 6. 4.05 = dwelling units/acre +,zg *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for 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. RECFIV'F]) JUL 16 2014 CITY OF /:!HHO:·J K\20 1 2\ I\ 121 02'J\Documents\Reports\Prc!iminary\dcnsity 121 02.doc Pl :'\ ~~ ,\~' irJ(,,; rx,;. :: .:: ;. tiJ1os City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. 401 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 0 trees Trees in proposed public streets 57 trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 13 trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers 122 trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. 183 trees 209 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 62.7 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4 : 5. 54 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 8.7 trees (Jf line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. 104.4 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. 2 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6: (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. 53 trees 1 Measured at chest height. 2 Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximu~C \\/ ~: Q trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a \'( L.\_/ L_ , 1·- 6 Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on j~hif 6 Z O 1 14 are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. CITY Of !-:CNION R:\20 l 2\ l \ 121 02\3\DocumenLs\Reports\Preliminary\TreeRctention Wod .. sheel 12 l 02.doc p,_I\N:\J 1 \)C, 1 )i\'l:_:,iJ\; 12/08 May21,2013 Project No. 12102 CITY OF RENTON CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION REPORT PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VUECREST ESTATES 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 April-September 2014 Home Construction: September 2014-2015 Monday -Friday, Hours to meet guidelines set Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes: North on Smithers Avenue S to S 4ih Street, East on S 4ih Street to 102nd Avenue SE, South on 102nd Avenue SE to SE 192nd Street, East on SE 192nd Street to 1081h Avenue SE, North on 1081h Avenue SE which turns into Benson Drive S, then into Talbot Road S before meeting with Interstate 405. ESC Measures: The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Design elements as listed in SECTION VIII (PART A) of the Technical Information Report shall be implemented 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 PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: DANE THIESSEN 1441 N 34TH ST SUITE 200 SEATILE, WA98103 PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 2013 The plat name, VUECREST ESTATES has been reserved for future use by HARBOUR HOMES LLC. 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 May 16, 2014, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted. :;·r_) I, I .[ AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) ,, duly sworn~~ia{Qi#os~dc;;)s~H ' being first 1. On the / 0 ~ day of fl((_, , 20 / 3 , I installed ~ public tk ~~ ::] information sign(s) and P,lasticflyer box on the property located at 4Joo <z;t,( i tke, itvc., for the following project: 4 rt I' q I {) 2 N [) ,1,,r.,_ ,; e ~-e C-1!e,r Project name Hft/lpouL H,bMl> Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. I 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 Information Signs, sS, · n" ha t package. I staller Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /(f~ day of /1 o,// I ,20__5. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Ferfu71(ltlh_,1, !J.)/) · My commission expires of 4'zo J ;)3 d0/,'2, / H: \C ED\Data \F onns-T emp la tes\Sel f-Help Handou ts\Plann ing\pu bsi gn.d oc -3-03112 PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION Type of Action. Subdiv1s10n Proiect Name. Vue Crest Site Address: 4700 • 4900 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CO NTACT CITY OF RENTON STAFF AT . Development Services Oiv,s,on 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washmgton 98055 . e PROPOSED LANO USE ACTION Type of Action: Subdivision Project Name: Vue Crest Site Address: 4700 • 4900 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 " TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT CITY OF RENTON STAFF AT: .. !t Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton; Washington 98055 '----.4-----' ' PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR Schneider Homes Plat on Smithers 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. S PRE 12-000108 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division November 21, 2012 Contact Information: Planner: Vanessa Dolbee, 425.430.7314 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Arneta Henninger, 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 U!Jder the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ··•···~•-"'c'!!'!ity'"'o";f-/. ---- ------]! f{:~fJJJtO:JJ MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary comments for Schneider Preliminary Plat 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee will be reduced to $479.28 as of January 1st, 2013. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. 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 apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150-feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. It was previously decided to require a 32-foot wide street if the street grid could not be extended. If this future extension can be achieved, the required 32-foot paved street may be reduced to 28-feet of pavement. A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction requirements. ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2012 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Arneta Henninger, Plan Review /t# Schneider Plat (2"d Preapp) South of S. 47TH St & Smithers Ave S. Pre 12-000108, Parcel 3123059048 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 20-lot plat proposal, located at the end of Smithers Ave S., just south of S. 47th St in Sect. 31, Twp 23N Rng 5 E. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. Water l. The proposed subdivision is within the City of Renton retail water service area. However, there is no City water main in the vicinity of the development that can be extended to provide the necessary water pressure. 2. It appears that Soos Creek Water & Sewer District (SCWSD) has an existing water main along the north side of the property that can be extended to serve the subject development. The applicant shall contact SCWSD and obtain a certificate of water availability. 3. The City's Water Utility will be able to release the water service to this property to SCWSD upon confirmation that the District can provide water service to the proposed development. 4. Per the City Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow requirement for a single family home is a minimum 1,000 gpm 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; two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Lateral spacing offire hydrants is predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections. 5. All fire hydrants need to be brought up to current code if not existing including Storz quick connect fittings. Schneider Plat PRE 12-000108 {2"' I ,) Page2of3 November 20, 2012 6. The City of Renton Water System Development Charges (SDC) are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. There is a proposed increase effective January 1, 2013. On average the increase is proposed at about 12% on each of the SDC fees for water, sewer, and storm. Sanitary Sewer 1. This site is located in the City of Renton sanitary sewer service boundary. 2. There is an existing 8" sewer main in Smithers Ave S. See City of Renton sanitary sewer drawing #S-2776 for details. 3. Project plans need to show how sanitary sewer will be provided to each unit with an individual sewer service line. Per code, sanitary sewer needs to be extended along the full frontage of the parcel being developed. 4. This proposal appears to be located in Special Assessment District (SAD) 0013 and 8406. SAD 8406 is Valley Medical, and it appears to have been paid. SAD 0013 is the Summit Park Latecomer, and it also appears to have been paid. 5. Sanitary Sewer SOC fees are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. There is a proposed increase effective January 1, 2013. Storm Drainage 1. There are existing storm drainage facilities in S. 47th St and in Smithers Ave S. See drawing #R- 2776. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. Based on the city's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The drainage report will need to follow the area specific flow control requirements under Core Requirement #3. 3. 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. 4. Surface Water SDC fees are $1,012 per lot. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. There is a proposed increase effective January 1, 2013. Transportation/Street 1. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting is required on the full internal street of the parcel being developed. The internal street is required to be extended to the southeast boundary of the parcel to provide future connection to SE 186'h Street and Main Avenue South. A temporary turn around cul-de-sac will be required at the east end of the internal road. 2. Street improvements for the interior road are 28 feet in pavement width. The right-of-way is to be 55 feet in width, with an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk both sides. H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\12-000108.Vanessa\Plan Review Comments PRE 12-000108.docx Schneider Plat PRE 12-000108 I eapp) Page 3 of 3 November 20, 2012 3. The narrow street to the east, fronting lots 17 & 18 will be public right-of-way with 26' dedicated and 20' pavement. This will lead to and turn south with a public alley which will be 16' right-of-way with a 12' pavement section. 4. A joint use driveway with a 12' pavement section shall be extended easterly from lots 17 and 18 to serve the remaining lots 19 and 20. 5. Street lighting shall be per current City of Renton standards and specifications. The residential decorative lighting on black poles spaced approximately 110' is required. See City of Renton details. 6. Per City of Renton code, all lot corners at intersections of dedicated public right-of-ways shall have a minimum radius of 15 feet. 7. All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. The construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording the plat. 8. Traffic Impact fees have been adopted by the City of Renton and will apply to this project. General Comments 1. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 4. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\12-000108.Vanessa\P!an Review Comments PRE 12-000108.docx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M November 21, 2012 Pre-Application File No. 12-000108 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Schneider Homes Plat on Smithers General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 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 is located near at the dead end of S 47'h Street, parcel number 3123059048. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat for a 20-lot subdivision of a 9.31-acre site located within the R-8, R-1 and R-14 zoning designations. The proposed lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single-family homes. Access to the site is proposed off of S 47'h Street which would end as a stub road to the east. Current Use: The site is currently vacant. Zoning: The subject site is split zoned Residential 8 net du/ac (R-8), Residential 1 net du/ac (R-1), and Residential 14 net du/ac (R-14). The zoning is based upon the slopes at the subject site. The eastern R-8 zoned property is divided from the R-1 property by the toe of the sensitive slopes. The R-14 zoning is located in a small area on the west side of the property at the toe of the slope. Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. A slope analysis survey would be required at the time of land use permit application identifying and diagramming the toe of the slope to determine how much land area is located in which zones. However the proposed subdivision appears to be isolated to the R-8 zoned portion of the property. As such the following report addresses R-8 standards which would be applicable to the proposed development location. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is located within the R-8 zoning designation. The density range allowed in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The area of public and private streets and critical areas h:\ced\planriing\current planning\preapps\12-000108.vanessa\12-000108 (r-8, r-14 & r-1 schneider plat, urban separator1 erosion, landslide, slopes, wetlands, stream).doc Schneider Homes Plat on S Page 2 of 5 November 21, 2012 ,rs, PRE12-070 would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density. The application materials identified that 4.20 net acres would be applicable to the subject development. However, the calculations included in the narrative identify the subdivision has 21 lots, the proposed plat map shows 20 lots. Based on the provided information, the proposed lot 20 lot subdivision would result in a net density of 4.76 du/ac. Based on the above calculations is appears the subject development would be compliant with the R-8 density regulations. A survey would be required ot the time of formal land use application to determine the toe of the slope, R-1 and R-8 boundary ond land area for each zone, in order for staff to confirm that the project complies with the density provisions of the 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. As the majority of the subject site is located in the R-8 zone the below information is applicable to that portion of the site subject to R-8 standards. Minimum Lot Size, Width and Depth -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 is 4,500 square feet for parcels greater than 1 acre in size and 5,000 square feet for lots 1 acre or less in size. The total Jot area of the subject site is more than 1 acre; therefore a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet is applicable to the proposed project. A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner Jots, as well as a minimum Jot depth of 65 feet, is also required. The proposal appears to comply with the lot size, width and depth requirements of the zone. However, a number of the lots are designed in an odd shape, due to their shape staff was unable to determine compliance with lot width and depth requirements. Detailed information regarding lots size would be required at Preliminary Plat submittal to show compliance with lot width and depth requirements. Lot Configuration -One of the following is required: 1. Lot width variation of 10 feet (10') minimum of one per four (4) abutting street-fronting lots, or 2. Minimum of four (4) lot sizes (minimum of four hundred (400) gross square feet size difference), or 3. A front yard setback variation of at least five feet (5') minimum for at least every four (4) abutting street fronting lots. Building Standards -R-8 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 and a maximum impervious surface 75%. Building height is restricted to 30 feet from existing grade. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet. The gross floor area must be less than that of the primary structure. Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. 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 al/ lots. Building Design Standards -All single family residences would be subject to the Residential Design Standards outlined in RMC 4-2-115. The proposal's compliance with the residential design standards would be verified at the time of building permit review for the new residences to be located on all lots. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-000108.vanessa\12-000108 {r-8, r-14 & r-1 schneider plat, urban separator, erosion, landslide, slopes, wetlands, stream).doc Schneider Homes Plat on Smit~ Page 3 of 5 November 21, 2012 'RE12-070 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-8 zone are 15 feet in front for the primary structure and 20 feet in front for the attached garage, 20 feet in the rear, 5 feet on interior side yards, and 15 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements) for the primary structure and 20 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements) for the attached garage. The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Access/Parking: Access to the site is proposed off of 5 47th Street which would end with a future stub road to the east. RMC 4-7-150, Streets-General Requirements and Minimum Standards, requires that the proposed street system extend and create connections between existing streets. A grid street pattern is required to be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision. Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential low Density land use designation. 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. Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Driveways: The maximum driveway slopes cannot exceed 15%, provided that driveways exceeding 8% are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance is required. Landscaping -Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The 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. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Preliminary Plat application. Significant Tree Retention: If significant trees (greater than 6-inch caliper) are proposed to 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 the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. Urban Separator: Approval of a plat, and/or building permit on an undeveloped legal lot in the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of fifty percent (50%) of the gross land area of that portion of the parcel or parcels located within the Urban Separator as a non- revocable open space tract retained by the property owner, or dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the reviewing official. In order to satisfy the dedication requirement, some of the area to be dedicated may consist of land abutting the Urban Separator, as determined by the Planning Director, on a case-by-case basis. Acreage in tracts may include critical areas and/or critical area buffers. At a minimum, open space shall be connected to another contiguous open space parcel by a fifty foot (SO') corridor. h:\ced\p!anning\current planning\preapps\12-000108.vanessa\12-000108 (r-8, r-14 & r-1 schneider plat, urban separator, erosion, landslide, slopes, wetlands, strearn).doc Schneider Homes P!at on S Page 4 of 5 November 21, 2012 ·rs, PRE12-D70 Development shall be clustered outside the contiguous open space corridor. Forest/vegetation clearing shall be limited to a maximum of thirty five percent (35%) of the gross acreage of the site. Forest/vegetation cover may include a combination of Northwest native vegetation including conifer, deciduous trees and shr.ubs sufficient to provide water retention and erosion control, as determined appropriate by the Reviewing Official. The Reviewing Official shall determine whether existing vegetation provides functions to meet forest/vegetation coverage standards, and shall require additional plantings if existing vegetation is found to be insufficient. Landscape plans required in RMC 4-4-070 shall include retention/replanting plans as applicable, consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Publication "Going Native." Critical Areas: The City of Ren ton's Sensitive Areas mops indicate the presence of "protected and sensitive slopes", erosion hazards, high landslide hazards and a potential for wetlands on the subject site. The provided plat map indicated the presence of a wetland and stream. Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more. If any work is planned on a "protected slope" a Variance from the Critical Areas regulations would be required. Please note the burden would be on the applicant to demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative other than to disturb the "protected slopes." A subdivision in which the average slope is twenty percent (20%) or in which any street in the subdivision has grades greater than fifteen percent (15%) at any point would be considered a Hill Side Subdivision. Additional review criteria and submittal information is required for Hill Side Subdivisions. In any event, erosion hazards, high landslide hazards and steep slopes are Geological Hazards therefore, a geotechnical study shall be provided by a qualified professional. The study shall demonstrate that the proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond the pre-development conditions, the proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas, and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. In addition, the study shall assess soil conditions and detail construction measures to assure building stability. A wetland and stream report delineating and classifying the wetland and stream on site is required to be submitted with the formal land use application. In addition, as there are proposed impacts to the wetland and/or stream, a mitigation plan and a secondary stream study should also be submitted. City staff may require secondary review of the wetland and/or stream report, at the expense of the applicant. RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.f states that standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-000108.vanessa\12-000108 (r-8, r-14 & r-1 schneider plat, urban separator, erosion, landslide, slopes, wetlands, stream).doc Schneider Homes Plat on Smit Page 5 of 5 November 21, 2012 PRE12-070 iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet {25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case- by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 of this Section. Wetlands and Streams and their associated buffers are required to be placed within a Native Growth Protection Easement to protect the critical area from any proposed development for a non-exempt activity. Environmental Review: Environmental (SEPA) Review is required for projects nine lots or greater, or on sites that contain critical areas. Permit Requirements: The proposed subdivision would require Preliminary Plat Approval and SEPA Environmental Review. All land use permits would be processed within an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. The Preliminary Plat Review application fee is $4,000 and the SEPA Environmental Review is $1,000. A 3% technology fee would also be assessed at the time of land use application. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the impact fees would be required. On January 1, 2013 impact fees, which would replace mitigation fees, will become effective. Such fees would apply to all projects and would be calculated at the time of building permit application and payable prior to building permit issuance unless deferred to time of sale. A handout listing the impact fees is attached. A Renton School District Impact Fee, which is currently $6,392.00, would be payable prior to building permit issuance. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. *Once the application materials are complete, the applicant is strongly encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor front counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please call for an appointment. cc: Jennifer Henning h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-000108.vanessa\12-000108 {r-8, r-14 & r-1 schneider plat, urban separator, erosion, landslide, slopes, wetlands, stream).doc 390 0 195 390 NAD _ 1983_HARN_StateP!ane_Washington_ North_FIPS_ 4601 Feet Zone Map Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 09/11/2012 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data !ayers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. TH!S MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Jurisdiction Boundaries [] Other [] City of Renton D Parcels Zoning • RC Resource Conservation R-1 Residential 1 du/ac • '.;(! ii! t.!, • • • Ill • ~ • Notes None R-4 Residential 4 du/ac R-8 Residen1ial 8 du/ac RMH Residential Manufactured Homes R-10 Residential 1Ddu/ac R-14 Residential 14 du/ac RM-F Residential Multi-Family RM-T ResidenOal Multi-Family Tradition RM-U Residential Multi-Family Urban C, CV Center\lillage CD Center Downtown UC-N1 Urban Center -North 1 UC-N2 Urban Center -North 2 COR Commercial Office/Residenlial CA Commerc1a) Arterial CO Commercial Office CN Commercial Neighborhood JL Industrial -light IM lndustnal -Medium lH Industrial -Heavy 0 1: 4,677 CityofReilfone Finance & IT Division 390 0 195 390 NAO_ 1983_HARN_StatePlane_Washington_ North_FJPS_ 4601 Feet Vicinity Map Information Technology ~ GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 09/11/2012 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Jurisdiction Boundaries · [J 0th.er [1 City of Renton D Parcels Notes None 0 1: 4,677 ~one Finance & IT Division -PLANNING DIVISiCN WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ' , LAND, l!SE:PERMIT SU~MITTALJ .. , ' ':,:,,a:,::•: ''·.R.Eau·1RE111i'E':NfS':i'f Density Worksheet 4 Drainage Report 2 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Floor Plans 3 AND 4 Legal Description 4 Master Application Form 4 @'sh~'wMlt¢~t#I'<~h~'~:~1:.0:9'o§fjliihi1;" Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services .· PROJECT NAME 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning DATE: _'1-'-+-/ /_0J.._..C/ /--'-1._""------~ H:\CED\Dala\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handou!s\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09 -PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Plat Name Reservatio·n 4 Fr\i~iJf,ii§¥11~.~!N1~~f!n:~ ~µ~.nl~~;:1: Public Works Approval Letter 2 Traffic Study 2 :11kf ¢~tli1~(t~@:91~~ii.~g'.P1kf}i• Wetlands ReporUDelineation 4 Applicant Agreement Statement ZAND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 ANo 3 Map of.Existing Site Conditions zAND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND3 Photbsimulations ZAND 3 ! This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: _&.=-c:h'-L!_n,,_e""'ick=-..c.v-~_,_f_,P __ _ DATE: _q'-l-/'-"=A3'1--/.L.<IZ=------2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning H:\CED\Oata\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09