The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1• • modifications/steps to ensure that this Intersection Is safe for both pedestrians and vehicles with the addition of increased traffic resulting from the construction of The Reserve at Tiffany Park. If you have any additional questions about our concerns, please feel free to contact Sue Dahlberg at 425-228-1830, Heidi Maurer at 206-715-3593 or Cynthia Sharp at 425-226-5828. Sincerely, The Ponderosa Estates Communi~ Cc: Denis Law, Mayor Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Tiffany Park Neighborhood Association Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Coordinator Chris Barnes, Sr., Transportation Operations Manager Attach: Ponderosa Estates Neighborhood Signatures f • Ponderosa Estates Residents Name ft~flfers kh/J~R(.s Q,thj-:J. rzo g Cf:t25': ~e"" \ <:, C'ry L.. "-j ~ \ I " 5 () ,v ~ 12-:ttulli ·~t\Ju r\ 1re1f\ ~'\ \ SO,Y1\-V\ BV"tV\delt\;\ p~ StJ~~ Cj ~E=t=f~o:::::--- 1./1 a ()~ ---rLLtj /0 ( ~1ioC 11) l.fe YJIlC{rtt'"u ~Col~ /)/),'1<. e. /1/1/2..1,-.) 00 ) ~t.\ .1<o\.w,,, ..... hCM.\.<~ \:~\()fe ~/~ 4~/Y#e ft;//!,tI, .1tt>1J1ene Q~AVF~ ~ 'fE:~DBV9-rn (8tll fIC/({ L~ /Iolf A (t O(l.-W er'f • Address L~cf\ ~cdbt'" ~i-Pe07\- '2 '5 Ocr S &" I (Jf+? S +r.J2fl7f- l:to \ £0" \W4?l S l-v\j s-~ 11()9 &t1JDIl/S 11f:J.1 S& {7 0 1 e~o/(d.5 V{7'~ 5F .' • ........ _"" y ..... -, ......... ,"' ... __ ..... Name Jose 5. Paeheeo t \; 11\ ~ MClI.A If'e V- &ike--J ~llttJV".t-/ \.\41. C~W/l\ ~\A\vtlD MCl~ea Allain 1 D 7=tqp r/Ju-k'~ ~~ t /tte;;,/ ,fo-.tAJ 1///4/ /flt£I Jk~~~ ~4· - ~. c~ ~ • Address 1$0 r fJ mille/; vr 5c If e f1 'fun; Iv IJ q lor! 18b9 Edrnonds Way S£ Renwl'l, WA 9a05B zteoS EdmtJrrds (;f--sf!. /&rI+aYl 1 uJA qf~5F l~ J:'J\IV\O~.s e.{ ~ re~, tNV-\.. 9~o'Jr .-:/ / c¥ SE-c::< ~i);; CCl./7,;-4 s ;2~~lV '" 9 ?,o\-~ 1f?/t.. EcIPr#ltc4 fA.k~;;E Reltlo A lJA q~oSS J~/~ E/............... tv1 s c: AA..... ,wit· <l/fOS1/ l'Q-I{·~ WAi. D.£.N'1()l-l, w~ \\65& \ f>2A-e-~ ~(W)t ~ \,1\1'\ ~ ~ W~ "\eJO'-5 \~1.tt. filMIM9 M~ ~ ~fX\ Wt\ Ci~ Denis Law· Mayor· .' ••• .. , " ." Departmer\t of co~m~nity imd Econmnic Developm'ent . ' .. 'February 20, 2014" .. CE,"Chip"Vincent, Administrator • • • • • : 0 .. Sp:ro G,Roi:kas 1686 Monroe' Ave SE .. ' . Renton WA98'OS8~3i110 '. " \0' <SUBJECT: ·.RESERVE AT TIFFANVPARK COMMENTiu:sPONSE IF((ER, • lUAi3c()OEi7:i, PP,ECF . . .. '. ,. . ' . ' • " 0 Thank yci~for yourcomme~tsrelated totli~ R~;erv'e a~ Tiffany p~i-k;datedFebruary 8, 2014, your letterlNill beaddedto tnICpublic' recordforconsklenition by therevie~ing . officialandyou have beenaddedasa party of record: '.. i' ','. To adcjress,your c~ncernsthe applicant wilrbe iequired to cornplywith.the City's' . ,development reguiations'as'we'li as VVashington State's Environmental policy(sEPA) .. ' 'which'includeS:req~ir,err;entsf6r miiigatiCm for impacts caused by the devi:iopment, " o ' 0 '.'''.,' , ' "," " o. • • • 0. ) The City will ~~~iew the. proposal ~ith regard toth~p~otection of valuable'.: . . enyiri:i~menta! amenities arid to ensyre the developmehtis as compatible ~~. possible' .' .. ,.;. , .. with the:ecological.balance of the area; The g~a.ls ofthe City areta preservedrainage' . p~tt~rns;'prote'ct groundwater supply; prevent erosi6na~d to preservetrees and '.' natLiral v~getation, AdditiohallYi,theapplicant is ~equiredto demonstrate. proper .. , ,p~ovision5 for all puplic faCilities (including a~i:ess, 'Circ,ulation~utilities, .and service,S). , . , . The. project has beeriplaced.on hold, pending the receipt ofa Habitat Data Report; ., anaiyzing impacts to critical'habi,t<its for animais on the, site, Additionally,the City has requested the applicantproitide a'n independeritsecondary review of the applicaQt's' wetland.analysis andtrimsportation~nalysis a~dthe eff~ctiveriess oitlie proposed' , . -: . . Gi,!enth~re~aS'a major holiday during the initial publiccorn~ent period the City will . conduct an additional two-week public comment period once requested materials have .been iubmitted, Notice of the start af the 'additional cbmmentperiod arid. the, res~heduled hearing' date will be. provided in the form of: an'. additional letter t6' all . property owners within' 300 feet ·of the subject property; ,n.otices posted in several consplcu'ous places near theprope~y; and you will receive {in the mail)'a courtesycbpy .. ', Renton City Hall • '055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 980S7 • re,;tonwa,gov . ".' . " . M'r:-Rocka:s Pag'e 2of2 : February 20,2014 • '0 .1 oftheoff-holdletter prOVide~ to the applicant. Atthat time please feel free toco~tact . meto request a copy of m~terials in the file foryour review~and additional comine~t.· . Thank you for interest in this project ,and if you have.anyfurther questions please .feel freeto coniactme at 42?-430-72.19 or rtiinmons@rentcinwa,gov.Thank you. '.' i .', ....• ~. Sincer~eIYi' > , .•...•.. '. '" .•.•.. ' .. > .•. < ....... :~ . :. oc Ie Tim" . . .' .... Seor Planne~ ..... . .....•......... " .. .: . ~:' ,- ". ; . ,.' . Rocale Timmons From: Sent: . To: • Ge·orgerock <georgerock518@comcast.net> Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:04 PM ABeD o SUbject: Meeting at Tiffany Park School on February 6,2014 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Rocale Timmons Follow up Flagged Jan lilian Senior Planner Plan Reviewer Department of Community & Economics Development, Planning Division Renton Washington (425)-430-7219 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov jilliian@renton.wa.gov As I stated at the meeting my concerns are: 1. After attending the meeting at Tiffany Park School on February 6, 2014 after being informed by the neighbors. I was surprised that the only people who where notified was households within 300 feet of the proposed development Not the hole neighborhood. As stated this was published in The Renton Reporter. If you drive through the neighborhood you will notice the papers just lay their until the recycle days because there wet or don't read it. The City should send the information in the monthly Water-Sewer & garbage bill. 2. The removal of all but 102 trees out of 1,305. When I moved here and purchased a new home on Monroe avese in 1976 that the builder's Hills or Henderson had to leave two trees per lot or replace them with new trees and if this new development is approved the builder should do the same. 3. The proposed Surface water retention/detention ponds should not even be approved. The Homes that where built behind me stating 1979 also wanted to put surface water retention/detention ponds the neighborhood had a big problem with them being here. For the reasons the safety of the children in the neighborhood and the mosquitoes hanging around the stagnant water. The builder said there not a safety hazard they will be fenced. Kids live to climb fences. After meeting with the City of Renton the builder was told no surface water retention/detention ponds. The city of Renton should do the same with this project if approved. 4. The possibility of eliminating parking on one side of the affected streets and I say why. Do we want a speed way. When I moved to the Tiffany Park neighborhood in 1976 there were only two ways in and out, one being se 16th and the other was Royal Hills drive until 1979 when the final faze was built behind Monroe ave se hooking up with this side of Fairwood. The other road opening was across the Pipeline road at the end of Kirkland ave se going into the Cascade neighborhood. 5. Which was brought up is the Tiffany Park school and how they are going to handle the overflow of children? Spero G Rockas 1 Georgerock518@comcast.ne. February 8, 2014 CC Dave & Renate Beedon davebeedon@comcast.net Bob & Cynthia Garlough bob@garlough.org • Bill Roenicke risingr@integrity.com 1 0 r This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 2 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Ms. Voeller, • Rocale Timmons Monday, February 03, 2014 8:57 AM 'rvo7@comcast.net' RE: Tiffany Park Development - Thank you for your comments. They have been placed in the official file and will be considered by the reviewing official. As a separate note, in order to add you as a party of record please provide me with your mailing address. Thank you. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov From: rvo7@comcast.net [mailto:rv07@comcast.netl Sent: Sunday, February 02,20143:14 PM To: Rccale TImmons Subject: TIffany Park Development Concerns: 1. I'm tired of losing our forests. That is what makes Renton, WA a place to live. 2. They replaced our roads after the remodel of Tiffany park schools. There going to have to do it again? Face it trucks ruins the roads. 3. They have a plan in action to replace the sewer/water lines. How much construction/destruction does one area have to deal with!! Thanks Vicky Voeller 1 ", :'. . --" ',", Deriis lavic " ,Mayor-:' ' •. , . . .. z,r ......... ' JanuarY,tS.2p14 ....•• . . ' . William Roe~c~e'. '3ii1SE18th St . Re~t~n,WA 98058 " .. " .• r . Departm,erit ~f CominuriityandEconolTlic DeveloPrT1ent· .. . . C.E."Chip?VJncent, Administrator .... I,. .' ':.' '_ ,', '. '" - . '.': ..... 'r, ' . . :- . ... , ,'-. ,"'; , . .. '. :' " SUBJECT:' ;' . RESERVE AT TIFFANY pARK COMMENT RESPONSElETTER ,. -. . '. .: . "',LUA13"O()1572;PP, ECF ' . ; .. . . · .• D~arMr.Jon~s: • .,','. ."- 'Tha~kYou f9~;{OUrCommentshilat~9 to the Reserv~_ at'Tiffany'Parl<; dat~d[jecemb~r: '11,2013whereiri you~ai~ed ~oncerns.to·the City's notifiCation processandco~lTlent .. ' · period arid the proposed proJect: your email0i1i beaddedtothe public record for .. tonsider~tionpy the. reviewing officialandyou hav~ been added as apartyof record. , '_.', _," "J' " •. ' '. '. ',' .. ' •• ,. " " ,:' ", . ( .• ' '. ,,' " ',' .. ~' · Publkc~~ment was requested appropria~elyby ttie-Cityusing thef~1I6wi[lgrheasures . .' . pe~i:od~: (~) anciticeboard on thesitei (b) a ;lOticei~a'newspaper of:gerH~millocal .' . .... ·Cirtulatiori;~arid.(c) written notice is ~<liledt6'allp~6pe~Y~wrierswithinth~eehuridred ... , '. -'. :, 'l' ".'" _. _ ." ,--.' .'. ' .... ' ' .'. -(. , ' .. fE!et(300') 6f.the subject property, A -14cd~y.cciml)ient period (notlinnitedtobusiness . ', -" "" '. :. '. ". "' .. . . . ' . i. .. '. d~ys)isprovided .. Once the City issues a.sEPAThreshold6~terminati6il; follci;"';ing the' commentperiod,thentheCitYholdsa14-dayappealperiod.· ;.,' '> . , · , -.. ' ," -' -. ~, ' . '. " " ,'. '.. '.' ,\ However,'given the factthatther~WasHoliday during the co;;' in eni: period and the· . ..•. ~ sehsitivE!riature.ofthepr6j~cttheCity haS·decided.to e~tendthe co'mmeritperiod, th~ '-. City.haspi~ced the project on hold peridingthe receipt of additional i~formationby'the . applic;anL .Oncetherequested;;;'ate;ials liavebeensubmltt~d to th.e City:will COhdud' . '. anadditibnaltw6:week publi~com!11ent period,.' . . .' . . .'. . . '. ' .... , -' ': .• ' , . .It should. also be noted that the Public Hearirjg, which was tentatively scheduled on .'. · JanlJary23, 2014, was cancelled and 'will be resctiedul~doncetherequested •... ~upplementai.inate;ials hav~been received; The-scheduling of the public h~~ringat' lb:OOa~ is not beingdohe with the inte;;tioriot'preciudin~ttios~ wh~w6rkfrom providihginput,-Ali City land us~ appJi~ation hearinis are helifduring City business · hours of 8:00am-5:0.0. pm. '1. apologiie if this is an incoriveniencetoyour schedule, If. you are unableto attend your concerns ca'n still be presented beforetheCity's Hearing' ,.,' • ' -•.. ;, '-,' . ' ':, . -'-".. • ',.'. ,', ,. ,'j' -Exarilinervia letter. '. " '." ',' . -', :."' . '. ,". . '.' Renion City Hall' , 1 055S6uthGrady Way ,-Renion, Washi~gton9805i. re'ntoriwa"go~.·· .. .. ,: '.' '. :. " .'. .~ " '. :', . .~" . ,----------------------------- " Mr:Roenicke ' Page2of2 Januaiy,~ 2014, , l?""- '.' , , . ',' , Notice ofthe sta~t of theadditi~nalcommentPeriod, and the new tentativehearing: ,. ,,'dateand time, wili be providedin theformbf:<in addition~lletterto aHproperty " , owners within300feet ofthe subject property; small pink notice~ pbstedin ~tleast , ' three conspicuous places nearthe property; and/oryouwiU receive (inthe mail) a , " ,courtesy copy ofthe offchbld letter provided totheapplicant . . --..",' ., . . The City isunableto preciude development as the prdPe~YiS ~riv~teIY owned. ,,' . .' .!:iowever, toaacjressy~ur concern~theapplicantwiU be required to comply with,the , , City's development regulations'as ,well ,as Washirigt'onState's Environmental·Policy·· . ,(SEPAl whi~h includes requi~ements for mitigation forir;;pacts taus~d by the -' '. . development.:' ,.' '; "', ,.' ,'" ,: '. ',. "" '." ".' · While theproposalwHlri6t specifitally be revieINedwithrespect tOimpacts on , 'surroundingproperty values.ihe.Citywili review the proposal with,regard to the' , 'Protection,of v~luable"environmental amenities and to ensu're thedeveloprnent is as 'cornpatible as possible with the ecological balance .ofthearea.' The goals of the City are. · to preserve drainage patferns, protect groundwater supply!' preventerosiori and to , ' preserve trees and~aturai vegetation, Additionally, the applicant is required.to 'demonstrate proper p~ovisions for all· public facilities (including access, cirt~l~ticin', -.~tilities, andservicesk ,'.' .' ',....,. , , Theapplicaflt lias provided Wetland, Arborist, Transportation,'Ge'otechnical/Soils, and Drainageanalysis,andp6te~tialmitigation, prepared byqertified professionals. The . project has been placed onchcild, pending the receipt of a Habitat Data Report, analyzing , " , ; impacts to critical habitats for animals on. the site. Additionally, the City has ;~quested' · th.e applicant provide ali independent secol]dary review of the,applicimt's wetland, ' • "analysis and transport~tion analysis and the effectivehessof:the proposed ll1itigation." o ,>,.. ;' . , .. " ·As a reminder, the City has placed the project orihold,ond. ca~i:eiled the public :' · hearing originally scheduled 0" January 23, 2014, pending the receipt of additiOnal . ...... '.' iirformationbythe appl/cant; .. ·· '. .. '. '. niarik you for inter.est in this projectandifyou have any further questions please feel' freeto contact meat 425-430-7219 'or rtimmons@rentonwa.gOv.Thatikyou. -' :. . s~ or~lani1er" <'. '.. . ••... . .... "" '", . ".-: :' . " .- Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rocale Timmmons, Jan Illian, • Roenicke <risingr@integrity.com> Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:45 PM Rocale Timmons Jan lilian • Tiffany Park Reserve Development LuA13-001572L There are a number of concerns I have relative to development of the Tiffany Park Reserve: 1) There is only one posted sign in a public area that I am aware of, which notifies residents of the planned changes to their neighborhood. That sign is at the end of SE 18th Street where few have reason to venture. talked to another neighbor, this afternoon who will also experience a major impact by the development. This neighbor knew nothing about what is planned to happen. In the interest of good representative government it would seem that the public would be notified of significant planned changes to their neighborhood by our representative government, and decisions should be made in the interest of justice for all. !regards to this issue: a) The practices of good representative government would call' one or possibly two evening public meeting in the area to openly discuss the issue with residents long before the prime comment period is cut off. Scheduling meetings "away from the public", during the day when most people are at work ... shame on you. b) While the contractor is interested in maximizing his profit, good government concerned about equal justice would not allow the outside influence to add to their profits by reaching into the pockets of the local community, i.e. reducing his expenses by devaluation of their existing property. 2) The schedule of events seems to have become very tight. While activity has been going on for months, only days or very limited weeks are being allowed for those impacted in the community to learn of the activity and form their comments. Again this gives the impression of a railroad job on the existing community. "We're just following the rules." Good management would institute rules, which promote peace. These actions give the impression of strongly favoring the outside interest. 3) Looking at the traffic study seems to gloss over what appears to me to be more than a minor consideration - the projected increase of traffic. The conclusions seem it does not appear to look any further than the immediate future. As stated if SE 18th Street is the principle ingress I egress route for 98 homes. Generally, and minimally, one can assume two cars per home, and both cars are used daily for work transportation, and there is one utility run daily of some nature. From an Inquiry with the Renton School System they have not determined what the impact on traffic would be, or how many students to expect at Tiffany park. They only look one and very generally two years into the future. None of the commercial companies that I have worked for over 49 in years of engineering would accept that type of response. In laying out a permanent community this vagueness can only lead to future complications. 1 Asswne 65 of those homes will.e a student at Tiffany Park and the snAts are driven to school (presently some neighbors only one to two blocks away see their children to and from school). The traffic study states the project will generate 1,030 daily vehicular trips. If one assumes that"nwnber will occur over 10 hours of a day that is 103 vehicles per hour, two per minute all day long. That sounds like heavy traffic. If the 80% of that traffic (824) occurs over two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening that is 206 cars per hour, that is the passing of one traffic vehicle about every 3.5 seconds. That sound like very heavy traffic for four hours each day. I wonder how many people involved in this study would buy a home, which exists in this environment. Further, this is a significant increase for accident potential, reduced safety, at the Tiffany Park School, a traffic magnet in its own right. One suggestion is to to ban parking on the north side of SE 18th Street. This ban would mean there is no place for a guest to park in front of my home to visit. The limited parking now is barely adequate. The city is pressing for neighborhood friendship development. If this ban is enacted, it directly opposes other program actions by the city to promote neighborhood friendship development, and significantly devalues my and other properties on SE 18th Street, in the area. SE 18 Street would become heavily traveled. One can understand the developers desire to maximize profits. But let the local govemment oversee that justice occurs for all by not letting the developers profits come in part by reaching their hand into the pockets of the existing community and devaluing those properties. The traffic needs to be more spread out, more opportunities of ingress and egress, 4 would provide a much better design. There is at least one other somewhat simple opportunity for an entrance I exit 4) I understand that there is to be some type of high concrete wall around part of the property. What a draw for the Graffiti Monsters. Has anyone watched the constant problem along 116 Avenue SE just north of 168th Street? Those board fences are a constant target. There are other issues I would like to research and comment on, but the end of your work day is nearing, I am submitting what I now have. Thank you for your consideration, and again this community' needs more time to understand and comment on and buy into this project. Bill Roenicke 425-271-7785 2 .:., . .. '. , Denis Law,:' • May?~ '. '.. .. . .... " , Department of Community and Economic Developm~nt , , , CE:Chip~Vii1Cent, Ad';'i;'istrator~ , ..' < ~. . ; ... January 24;20i4 ' ' .,' '., lynn Family' 12904'SE i60t~ , " , , , Renton, WA 98058 ' .... " ' .. ' , ,: SlJBJEcr: ; RESERVE ATTIFFANYPARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER' , , ' LUA13-001572, PP,ECF " " " . . . . '" . [)earLynn Family: ' .. ' , t, ; Thank you for yo~r c,omments ~elated to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated Deceniber 6, 20i3, Thisl~tter "";ill beaddedto the publicrec6rdfo~ consideration by the reviewing,. officialill;d yOu hav~ beenaddedas apai1:yofr~cord,' ," " ' ',', The Cityi; unable to PreCiudedevelopment as the property is privately owned: Ho";"ever,to addressyour concerns the appli~ant"";illbe'required to'co'mpIY with the, , . ~ . " 'CitY's development rE!gulatlons 'as welfiswashingtonStat~'s Envi'ronmentalPolicy, ,': ,,' ",. (SEPA)whichinclyd~~ requininie;'tsformitig~tioi1'fbr impacts caused by the, "" , devel6pment/ ,.,,', ' ' , , ' " . " ,::' . , While the prbpbsalwillnoi specifically be, reviewed withrespect to impacts on' , , surrounding propertyvaiues the City will review the proposal with,reg~rdto the , " P\otedio~ of vallJableenvirohmental amenities andto ensure th'edevelopment is as ' ' ",compatible as possible with the ecological balance ofthearea, Th'egoals oftheCity are to preserve drainage patterns;profectgroundwater supply,preve'nterosion ilnc:i to .' , presenietreesandnatural ve'getation.-Addftiorially, the applicant is require'd to ',demonstrate prop'er provisions for alLpublic facilities (i~clud'ing acce'ss;'circul~tiOn,. utilities; a~dser~jces), . " " ' " ,', ' ',' " , The project has been placed on hold, pending ihe r'eceipt bf a'Hal;Jitat Data Report, analyzing impacts to critical habitats for, animals on the site. ,Additionally, the City has r:equested theapplicant provide an independerit secondary review ofthe applicant's , • "lNetlandarialysis'ahdtransportation analysis and the effeCtiveness of the proposed' ',,'. mitigation, . , , . ' , .'. , , " .. ' ~ -.. "-):-. "- , ,'~ Renton ~ity Hall • '055 South GradyWay'. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov -------------------- Lynn Famfly , ". Page 2 0(2 . January 24, 20~4 . • • ·As a reminder, The CitYhds placed the project on holdjQ/;d ~anc~lIed the public hearinqorlqinallvscheduled on january 23;.z014,pendinq the receipt o(additional' information by the applicant: ;.'" .. .. .. Given then! ~a; a majOr holiday during the'initial public.commentperiodthe City will '. conductan adqitional two~week pubiic,corrime'nt' period once requested m'aterialshave . been submitted. Notice~fthe start·Ofthe additional corrim~nt period and the· . : rescheduled hearing date will'be provided in the forn;ot: an additional letter to all : •. ' . '.prdpehyo;"'n~rs .within 300 feet of th~subJe~t properi;y;noticesp6st,ed ill atl~ast three .. conspicuous places near th'e property; and:you will recei've(i~ the mail) a courtesy. copy. of the off-hold letter provided to the appliCant. " .. . . . " " ....... . ". '. ,", ," Thank y6uf6r 'interest in this proJ'ect a-ndif you ha've any f4rther q'uesti~~s'p'lease'feel' freet6 contact me at425-430:72i9 6rrtirririibns@rentoriwa.gov.Tha~k y6~ .. . '. . . . ." . . . -. ••..... ~SiO"'~y'4' .J~ . , .. OCI~':< •... ' .. : Se orPlanner' .' . . ': "" ., . , ," '. ,"., . :. . ", ". '. : ..... ..; ... . . ', .. -.'{ .. ," . , " '. : " .. '. Departniel1l ofConih1U~ityand Economic DeveloPment . :' .' . . . C.E."Chip"Vincent;Administrator '. . January 24(2014 .. : " " . :-.-.. . .. ", .. ' .. " ".' ,,,,., LarrYGorg ... '. . . . ; :"", ~1.800la'Re Y9ungsWaySE ....• Renton, WA 98058 . . -", "" ',' .' ": ", ': : ':., SUBJE(;f: ....• ' ; RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER. .. '-.-' . . "' LuA13-001572;PP,. ECF .... ".', . ' . '.'; . .; .. . :.: .. -.: .. .', .. ··.DearMr.Gorg: ; "' .. "J, :. . . . ,' . , " " ',' · Thank yoU foryour coiT)ments(email andletter).relaied totheReserile atTiffany Park;' · dated January 5, i014 ~h'erein'youraised~()n-cerns related.to the.Tiffany Park,.' . . ' ~Preliminary. Piat.' Your letter will be' added tothe public record,for consideration. by. the • reviewing,offici?1 a~dVouhave beenadqed asa'paity of r~cord .. < .. ' .' ; .... " . , ... ' -."," .. ', :,-. " . ...... . ..', . ~,." . ",."' ... , ... . . ' ... ' ''-; To address:your concerns-.the applicant.willbe requir~dto comply with the City's · 'developmentregulatib~s as wellas\'iI~shingtonState'5 EnvirbnmentaIPolicy(SEPA) ..•. .. , .. '. \i\lhichinducj e. requ i rerTi ents'f6r mitigatij)n fori m pacts tau sed by the development: . .. . While th:~ p;op6sal will not~p~cifii::ally berevie;""ed~ith respecttd im~acts on' c' "surrcHlndiniip;operty values the city willrevievithe~r~pbsal withregarci tothe .. ~ .' •• pr~tectiOrtof v~lua~le einvironr;;erital a;.ner\iti~s and t~ ensuretli~d~velopme~tis ~~, connpai:ibiE;.~s·possiblewitiitheecl?ldgii:al baianceofthe area. the goals ofth'e my ~re . '.' 'to pr~serVe d~ainage patterns, prote~tgroundwatersupplYi pre~eiii: ~rosiorialJd to · ", preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is requil'edto .. ' .' de~o~strate pr()per provisions for,.ali' ~ublic facilities (including access,~ircul~tion, .. · . utilities, arid·services). ", . ....... . . . . . . '" ,.-". ~ . -, . ;: ~ · " .·.The applicant has provided a tr~n~portatio~Analysis, prepared by a· i::ertifi~ci' ". . ' profession~l, which i~ciudes 'potentiimitigatibn,for proposedtransporta1:ionini~a~ts.· " .' · The City ha~ h6weverplaced.the project ~nhqldpending the receipt of an independent··.··· secondaryre',(i('!w ofthe applicarit'stransportatibn aflalysis ahdtheeffe~ti~eness ofi:he .' propose'd mitigation to el)surethe concerns you haveraisedare·beir\·ganaIYzed. .' ',.,.' -.., . ".' -. ~' '. .", " , ~', '" ' ":;, " ,~",',' . .', The a'pplidlnthasalsoprovided Wetl~nd,,6.rborist;GeotechnicaI/Sbils, and Drairiage > . analv.sis, imd~oi:~ntial mitigation, prepa~ed by certified professionals. Youstate.dth~t .... ~~oncernsrelated totheisolation··ofwetlarids forpublicaccessandmaintenance. ,While' . . -'.. ,-" .. ". "..-. ,.... ''-.' .,' '. ~. ' .. ', "", '. ~ -" . . ". " ' .. :'. '" ...... R~ntonCityHail.l'o55 South GiadywaY.;Rent~n, wa'Shington 98057 .• rentonwa.gov . . "".' " . . . '. ., ..", ~ -' . ," . ',", . .. __ ._ .. -~-------------- ',-, .'.:" ..',' ', .. , " ,'./ , ~ ' . .. -. . ,.1 . ',,' .. Mr. Gorg . :,' •. " .. Page .201 2 January24,2014 .: .... : weare unable to require thedeveloperto provide public accesstothe wetland on site'.· . ... you raise ai/alid ~on~ern with resp~ctto access for· maintenance', . This comment will be ' ": .',' ,." . '. .' .' ," , "., ': ... forwarded tothe'reviewing official for consid\!ration, The'City· has alsorequ'ested the" , applicant provide an iridependent secondary review ofthe provided transportation . : analysis and the-effectiveness of proposed mitigation: . " , , ,~ ;>' ' ,. , .... AsarerilifJd~r, The Cityhasp[aced the project on hold,cmdcancelledthepriblic . .. : hearing ~riginaliy scheduled on }rJnuary 23,2014,pending the receipt ojpdditional :.. ' information by the applicant. ....... :.,' .. .... . .. .. ,. Given~there \,/asamajorholidayduringthe initial~Ublic comment,periodthe Cit~Will ' ..• ' . . .... conductah additioral tw6-weekpubliccorrinlent period o~ce req~ested~atedals have' ',"beensubrhitted: N6ti~e of the startof,the .additicinalcorT\'mentpetiod and the :' . . rescheduled hearing'datewill be Provided in the form Of: an additional letter to all .. property owners within 300 feet of thes'ubject property; notices posted in at least three. ' . c6nspj~uous~laces neartlie propeity;and you will receive.(in the niail)'a courtesy··t6pY of the off-h~ldj~tterprovidedtotheapplicant,· . . . ... .. . . .. Thimkyou fori'nt~restin this. project a~d if yoJhave any further qu'e~tions please feel, ' . free to ccintact me at 42SC430-7219or rtirrirri6ns@re'ntonwa:gov: Th~nk you: ," '" " '. " . " .'. : Sincer~eIY' ... ' ... , ' .~ .... • •. '.' .. ' . ':.'.~.' ......... "':~ ..•. "'.' .. .. ' : oc leTim ., .... .,' ." ... . .... : : "Se or Planner : c . ..": ... . , '.' : . ';' ,', ' , \', "" ' .. ' . , ~" " .... , ." ' .. ' ' • • Larry Gorg 1800 Lake Youngs Way SE Renton, WA 98058 January 5, 2013 Subject: Tiffany Park ReserveILUAI3-001572, ECF, PP At the time of writing these comments, I have dealt with multiple personal and home issues and did not have time to fully engage reading this development report. However, I feel the project is too large for the stated access points my comments point in that direction. Either it needs to be trimmed down, or more access points be developed. I am a long time resident of Tiffany Park and am retired. I have two blind dogs that I walk through the neighborhood. These comments are a result of my observations while on "dog walks." Comments The Transportation Report states that it is estimated 1,030 vehicle trips in the daily commuting. The report breaks down to the number both leaving and exiting for both the morning and evening in the morning. I) Using the stated four hour commute time frame, I realize that I can expect a vehicle about every 15 to 30 seconds. This is way above we see now, even along Lake Youngs Way SE. 2) There are no estimates for non commute hours for service trucks or some one entering or exiting outside of commuting time. 3) I believe that the number of vehicle trips stated, 1,030 is low. Most of the homes in Tiffany Park neighborhood have two wage earners. Spend some time around Tiffany Park Elementary around 8:30 or 3: I O. Mom drops the kids off and goes to work. Dad picks them up after returning from work. 4) While on that 1,030 count subject, another reason that I believe the count is too low is that some households in our neighborhood have more than two cars. Junior living at home while attending college? Or, Junior came back to the nest after college instead of heading out on his own? Additional car shows up when kids attain driver's age. Mom and Pop get tired of jocking a kid around and junior gets a car. Sometimes that kid has a job after school. I see that the project desires to eliminate parking on the North side of SE 18 Street. I have to read ·between the lines to understand why. It goes back to the 1,030 vehicle trips. I) The report states that there are two access points, SE 18 Street and SE I 24th Street. To make SE I 24th Street an access point, the project needs to cross the City of Seattle's water pipeline. To do this, an easement is needed, which as yet has not been granted. Was there an application for an easement? If not SE 18 th Street becomes a busy arterial that serves one big cul-de-sac. With cars going down S 18 th Street every 15 to 30 seconds, this street will become even busier than Kirkland Ave SE. 2) Regardless of the access points, our neighborhood tranquility is gone. 3) It is my belief that this project, due to its size, should have more access points, such as using the sewer easement off Olympia Ave SE. 4) Those homes on the North side ofSE 18 th Street often entertain and parking on the street becomes Tiffany Park ReservelLUA \3-001 572, ECF, PP lof2 r--------------------------------------------------- • • non existent. If SE 18 th Street has no parking on the North side, they will have to park someplace. Spill over might end up on Lake Youngs Way SE, but due to the increase in traffic, parking might have to be limited on Lake Youngs Way SE, too. Is it a suggestion that overflow parking end up at the park at 1902 Lake Youngs Way SE, a block away, but that parking lot at times is also full. I have not seen any reference to the school district about this proposed development. Tiffany Park Elementary now hosts two portable classrooms and space is at a premium. I) Does the school district know about the estimated increase in student body with this development? 2) Even ifthey can mitigate the estimated increase, what about the traffic this new project will generate? I already know enough to not plan any trips between 8 and 8:30 and again between 3 PM and 3:30 when school starts and concludes for the day. It very difficult to get out of my drive way during these times. 3) When the school was rebuilt in the late '90s, they had to ask for a variance because of Ginger Creek. One building intrudes within the required buffer of the buried creek. Expanding the school, which now contains two portables, may not come cheap. . Walling off the wetlands, such as Wetland A, should be avoided. I) Who will own the wetlands after the development is complete? The city? The Tiffany Park Neighborhood association? 2) For Wetland A, there is no access other than an easement through someone's property which will impede any management issues. Abutting property owners can and will take maintenance issues into their own hands which may defeat the purpose of the wetland. Trees grow and requires maintenance. Sometimes those trees become accidents waiting to happen. Who is responsible for that maintenance? How will it be accomplished? 3) Walling off the wetlands creates mini neighborhoods. I've visited some of those wetlands and there is perfectly good dry areas around them. Why can't they be accessed by the general public? Ingress and egress from the development shows that most users will turn right on Lake Youngs Way SE, and follow to the intersection of Royal Hills Drive SE. Turn left up to the intersection ofPuget Drive and SE I 16th Street. I) The main ingress and egress from the Tiffany Park neighborhood uses SE 16th Street. This gives users a better shot of making a right turn on SE I 16 th • Street and a left onto Puget Drive during commute times. Royal Hills Drive serves three other neighborhoods. Trying to use that intersection is an exercise in frustration during commute times. 2) Most users, even those West of SE 16th Street, use SE 16 th Street over Royal Hills Drive SE 3) Some users that come down SE 18 th Street, make a left onto Lake Youngs Way SE, and turn onto Glenwood Ave SE, Ferndale Ave SE, or make the jog up 18 th Place and use Beacon Way SE to get onto SE 16th Street. This development will impact more than those around SE 18 th Street. Since my property abuts SE 18 th Street, and it appears it will become a major arterial, what compensation can I expect to receive for living next to an arterial and having to put up with the extra noise and traffic? Tiffany Park Reserve/LUA 13-001572, ECF, PP 20f2 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: • Rocale Timmons Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:55 AM 'Sheryl' • Cc: Subject: Wayne Potter (wpotter@novastardev.com); Barbara Yarington (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) LUA13-001572 Comment Response Letter -Anderson' Hello Ms. Anderson, Thank you for your email wherein you have raised concerns with respect to the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA13-001572). This email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. I will address your concerns as they have been raised. The applicant has recently applied for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used help the City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the next couple of months. The end of the public comment period does not preclude the public from participating in the remainder of the City's review. The City encourages public involvement throughout the entire process; an example being the Public Hearing which was tentatively scheduled for January 23, 2014. I also understand that you also have concern's related to access and you believe there is not adequate access being. provided to the development. As part of our review we will be looking to ensure that the development provides adequate access. Finally you have requested that the City delay the process in order to provide adequate time to resolve the issues you have stated in your email. While the comment period, which ended on December 10, 2013 was not the end of the process for public participation we appreciate the neighborhoods concerns with respect to adequate time to comment given the fact that there was Holiday during the comment period. As a result the City will be extending the comment period and you should receive notice within the next couple of days as to the new deadline. Please feel free to contact me should you have any other questions or if would like to elaborate on your concerns. Again, thank you for your input. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 From: Sheryl [mailto:anderson7836@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:59 PM To: Rocale Timmons; jilliian@rentonwas.gov Subject: new development in Tiffany Park Please put on the "Person of Interest" contact list, as this new effort on the part of a developer will impact me and my neighbors significantly. 1 ---------------------- Has anyone truly done an honest &ation about howthis effort wiU impact a.esidents who live along SE 18 Street? There should be more than one primary access into such a large development, and more than one secondary access. As currently planned, this will create a very inefficient and unsafe situation for all concerned. There should be at least four access roads leading into and out of this new development. Please consider delaying the process of this activity until it is clearly understood in the affected neighborhood, and everyone's concerns are stated and resolved. Thank you, Sheryl Anderson anderson7836@comcast.net 1727 Monroe Ave. S.E. Renton, WA 98058 2 . Cityo .... 1 Department of Community & Economr;·t*,ment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 10, 2013 APPLICATION NO: LUA13·001572, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 26, 2013 APPLICANT: Henley USA LLC 8 PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons ;;: 0 PROJECT TITLE: Reserve @ Tiffany Park 1§ ~ PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian z ...; SITE AREA: 20,2725 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): nfa ~ ~ LOCATION: SE 18'h & 124'h PL SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) nfa o - SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 98·lot subdivision of 22 acre site with wetlands. ill A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non·Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Eorth Air Water Plants Land Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Probable Minor Impacts B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Probable Mojor Impacts More In/ormation Necessary --I ~ ~AUJ~twIs -m Element of the Environment ':!istoric/Cultural Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts :z: CJ < .-..... '" g .... ~ m -:;:: ~ ~ More Information Necessary We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas 0/ probable impact or areas.Jwhere additional infrmatio 's needed to properly assess this proposal. • ! /2-3-& Date Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. Gorg, • Rocale Timmons Thursday, December 12, 2013 6:06 AM 'Larry Gorg' • Wayne Potter (wpotter@novastardev.com); Barbara Yarington (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park Thank you for your email wherein you have raised concerns with respect to the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA13-001572). This email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official. If you would like to be added as a party of record, and receive any future correspondence related to the application please provide your mailing address. I will address your concerns as they have been raised. You have requested that the City delay the process in order to provide adequate time to digest the impact of the subject development. While the comment period, which ended on December 10,2013 was not the end of the process for public participation we appreciate the neighborhoods concerns with respect to adequate time to comment given the fact that there was Holiday during the comment period. As a result the City will be extending the comment period and you should receive notice within the next couple of days as to the new deadline. I do hope that you find the City of Renton's process to be inclusive. Public comments received during the comment period are used help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the next couple of months. The end of the public comment period does not preclude the public from participating in the remainder of the City's review. The City encourages public involvement throughout the entire process; an example being the Public Hearing which was tentatively scheduled for January 23, 2014, but will likely be rescheduled given the extension of the public comment period. Please feel free to contact me should you have any other questions, would like supplemental materials from the application, or if would like to elaborate on your concerns. Again, thank you for your input. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 From: Larry Gorg [mailto:lpgorg@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 7:26 PM To: Rocale Timmons; Jan lilian Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park Please add me to the "Person of Interest" contact list for the Reserve at Tiffany Park development. I would also like to make some comments on this development, but also feel this development is occurring to fast to digest the information. There are some concerns that need to be ironed out and feel that the deadline of December 10 was too short and should be extended so that we can properly digest what impact this new development will have on our neighborhood. I feel that we are beingrailroaded into accepting something that we do not fully understand and will have a negative impact on our standard of living. 1 " . ' .. 'Denis Law . Mayor'. '.' ',. , ' : ; . : ,. ,'.:' "Geoff Erickson " ' " , "1719 Peirce Ave SE Renton, WA~8058,' "'. . , , ' D~partment ofCbmmunity and,Economic Devel6pme~t ' , ' ',' CE/'Chip~\fincent, A,dministrator, . '(. '. " " ' 'SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSHElJER ' LUA13-001572, PP;ECF 'Dear Mr, Erikson: ,Thank you for your comments, related to the Reserve at TiffanY. Park;d~ted December' ,10,2913 wherein YOIj'rai~ed conce~nsaboutimpactscaQsedbythe proposed project Your letter will beaddea to the j:lublicrecord forCo~sideration by the revieWing offici~1 ant! you'h~ve been added asa party ofrecor,d,,:,:, , , ,.'.' , " , ,pubiii:'comin~~twas requestedapprclpriatelybythe City using the following ineasur~s " perc6de: (ajimotice board ;n thesfte,'(b) ~ notice in a newspaper of general:local ' ,'circulation, imit(c) written n6ticeismailedto all property6wners withinthree'hundred, ,',., feet (30b'l.ofthe ~ubject property.: A i4-daYComm~nt,peri6d iriiJtliniited,t~bu~in~ss," days) is,pr:civided" bnc'e the City issiJes a 'SEPAThresholdDetermin!ltion: followingthe " ': comment period, then theCity holds a 14cday'aRpeal period,' ' . . . .' . .' ' . - ,'H~vJever; ~ive~ the(~ctth~tthere was Hoiidayduring the c~mrr;entpe~iod and the , " se~sitive natlJre of the projectthe City has decided to extend the comment.period, ,',' < TheCityhas placed the,project on hold pendingthereceipt ofadditi6riill information by' the a~plicant"O~cetherequestecimaterialshave been submitted tb the City will , 'conductan additional two-week pubiic comme·~tperjod,' ',' ' , " NO,tice ofthe start ofthe~dditional cornrn'entperiod, a~dthenewtentaii0ehearing, ' date arid .time, will beprpvidedin the f()rm of: an ~dditibnalletter to ail prop'erty ,',',' cow'ne'~s within 300f~.~t of the subjectproperty; small pink notices posted i~ at least ,',' thre~conspicuousplacesn~ar'the property; and/or,you will receive (in th~mailj a, courtesycopy ofthe off-hold letter providedtotheapplicant.' , , , ,The City is,unabletopreclude development, o~ requi~e the property be preserved as a p~rk, as it is privately owned, How~ver, to address you,rconcerns theapplicantwill be" required t9c9mply, with thebty's deveI6pmentrE;gulations~s well as 'W~shington . .' " -'. -. ","' '. -, '. ", .. ,", ". Ren~6n Ci~ Ha,lI • lOSS So~th 'Gradywai • Re~ton, Washington 98057· '. rentonwa.goy: .. . . . '. ", . ',', . : Mr. Erlkso-n Page 2 of 2 January 16, 2014'. • State's Environnient~1 Policy (S'EPA) which in~iudes r~quireinent~formitigation for' .impactscaus~d by the development. . " ., 'The City win review the proposal withrEigardto the protection of valuable . . eilVironmental amenitIes and to ensure the developmentis as compatible aspossible.· ' .. with theecol~gical balan~~ of the' area: The goiilsofthe City are to preserve drainage .,' patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve tree~ and· . .' riawral vegetation, Additional.ly, theapplicant is 'requir~d to demonstrate proper provisions for all pub'lie facilities (including access; circ~latiori, .utillties; and services):. , .The City has placed the project on hold,pending the receipt ofan indepemient .: .' secondary review of the .applicant;s transportationandwetland'an'alysis a.i1d .the effectiveness ofthe proposed mitigation, .' ...', . As a reminder, thf!Publii::Hearinq,whichwas 'tentatively sChediJledon january 23,' 2014, 'has been cancelled and will be rescheduled anie the requested supplemental' . materials have been received; , . Thank you forinterestin this project and if you have any further qu~stionsplease feel '. free to contact me at 425,430-7219 or rtirT!mons@rentonwa,gov, Thank you, Sincer~ly, .. '. '.' ..•• '... '., ". ~~~ ~~~~'rplanner .." ". '.' ... , ',"" • • Rocale Timmons From: Sent: Geoff and Meredith Erickson <geomer60@hotmail.com> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:04 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve/lUA13-001572, ECF, PP Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Reference plat # 2123059061, 2123059051, and 2123059044 Dear Senior Planner: I oppose the development of these parcels for a number of reasons. I believe that the notification process of residents was in error and that the response time must be extended. My reasoning is that the date of the letter and the delivery of the letter was delayed. Residents received the letter almost I week after the "date" of the letter. I oppose the access with regards to ingress and egress. I strongly believe that the negative impact on the existing residents located on potential ingress and egress is excessive. The parcels have" restricted access. This negative impact would be due to increased traffic flow. The increased traffic flow would also have a negative impact on pedestrian traffic. I also oppose the square footage size of the dwelling in the proposed development. The reasoning is that the larger homes would most likely have a greater number of people residing in them. Generally, the more people residing in a home, the greater impact on increased traffic trips as more people would drive. Thank you for your evaluation of my concerns. Sincerely, Geoff Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton 98058 1 , .... Denis 'La";, __ May.or. "January16,)014 ." ' ,Claudia Dorinelly . 10415 i47'h AveSE: ,Hehton, WA98059" Departmentof Community and Economic Development,' , ' , CE,"Chip"vincent, Administrai~r , ' . ,~ : ; ... ' . SUBJECT: ' .' ~ RESERVE ATTIFFANYPARkCOMME~TRESPON~EUTTER ' ' " LUA13-0015,n,I'P,ECF '-, ." -Dear Mrs: bonri~Jly: " , " '. " .":.-.. " Thankyoufor yourcomments relatei:l:to the Res~rve at Tiffany Park; dated January 6; , '2014.Ybur,letterwili be added tothepublic recordfo(consideration by the reviewirig, bffidaland you have been added as a party of record, " ,,' , ' , Toaddressyou'r concerns the applicaf)t'0i11tie required to compiy'with the Cjty;s '" : ';: develop~ent'(tree)'regulatiotis'as well ~s Washington 'State"sEnvironmentalPolicy • (SEPA) which InCludes requirE!ments for initigation forimpi'lCts caus~d bYthe ' development,"'." '" ' " " ' the Citywillreitiewthe proposaiwithregardto theprotectioll of valuable, . ", " -"" .'. "," "'. - , ,environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible,' , ',' wi1:hthe~cologicalbal~nceof t~e area, The goals of the City ar~ to pr~serve drainag~ patterns,:protect gioundw~ter supply,prevent ~rosioh andtoprese~vetrees and, ", ," " • , 'nat~ial vegeta'tioti, Additionall~,ttie a~plic~nt is r~quired to ,demo~st~atii proper , p rb~isibnsfor all public facilities (in dud i nga,ccess,ti rculation;utilities,a'ndservices).:" ", The project has been, placed on hold; pending tile receiptof a Habitat Data Repoit, ' analyzing impacts tbcritical habitats for animals on,the'site: Additionally; the City has' ,'requested the applicant pr~vide an independent secondary, review of theapplic~nt's ' wetland analysis and transportation analysisarid,the eff~ctivene?softhe proposed' 'mitigati~n,:"-' ,,", , " ' . ',--. '- , , As a ;eminder; T!iecitv has placed the'proi~ct on hold, and cancelled the public. , ,hearing o;iginallv scheduled on Jcmuary 23,2014, pending the, receipt o( additional ,information by the applicant.' , , ',', '. Given there Was am~jor holiday during theinitialpubli~tom~ent period the City will: " ':conduct an ~dditional fwo'week pUblic i:omm~ntperiod once 'requested 'materials have " , . . -. -. ,-; --'.' ... '. . ." ." ',: ,Renton CityH~1I .1055 s6Jth Gr~d~vVay -, R~nton,wastiington 98057 ,. r~~tonwa,g~v ." '. :, "r0rs", "Donnelly' . ,Page2 of 2 , January 16, 2014, " ------------, ; . " been ,submitted, .' Notice of the, startof. the,additionalcornment, period and the 'rescheduled, hearing date ,,viii tie providediri the .form of:, anadditional.lett~r' to, all , p~opertyow~~rs within ',300 feet of the subject property;,noti~espostedin at le~st three' 'conspicuous places near th'e'property; and,you will receive (in themailja courtesy wpy 'oftlle'off-hold leti:er imividedto the applicant, ' ~, . , . .' . . Thank you for, interest in this project andi(you have any furtl1erquestions please feel ", , freet6 contact me at 42S-130-7i19 orrtimmons@rentonwa.gov: Thank you," , "' . : 'Vl;miJ~ , , ~~~~Ir Pla~ner ' , , " .,.' , ' , " ". J.' , .' -I .". • Ms. Rocale Timmons Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 10415 -147th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 January 3, 2014 RE: PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Dear Ms. Timmons: While looking at the Current Land Use site on the City of Renton web site, I came across the above listed plat. Since Wayne Potter is involved with KBS and Windstone, I decided to comment even though the comment period is over. In the description it says: "The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant is proposing to retain 102 trees. (WOW!) It also says that this project is on hold. According to the attached document -Renton's Tree Policy. I am sure that the developers will say that all the trees will need to come down because they will be in the foundation's foothold. So, why bother having a tree policy? It takes years for trees to get to the size most trees are; the trees are the homes of wildlife and birds and enjoyment. What does this developer propose to do with the wildlife and birds that are displaced? And of course, the only mitigation is to replace them with trees barely big enough to be called trees. Maybe you should make the developer replace the removed trees with large fir trees and other "big trees". As previously stated, I've watched Windstone go in on Nile. The developer allowed yellow water to flow down Greenes Stream to May Creek and didn't stop it. They allow dirt to stay on the road and flow into the nearby streams without cleaning it up. They "forget" to put in mitigation trees until caught in the act. I hope that Renton really starts to protect the environment. Thank you. . Sincerely, ~utvJ4 Claudia Donnelly • From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Trees remaining in Renton Date: March 17, 20086:36:46 AM PDT Begin forwarded message: From: "Jennifer Henning" <Jhenning@cLrenton.wa.us> Date: March 15, 20082:33:35 PM PDT To: "Michael/Claudia Donnelly" <thedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Re: Trees remaining in Renton Hello Claudia, • The revisions to the City's tree regulations became effective in September 2007 . For projects subject to those regulations, a percentage of trees must be retained. Here is the code section (RMC4-4-130H): "H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENTIBUILDING PERMITS: 1. Protected Trees -Retention Required: Trees shall be retained as follows: a. Damaged and Diseased Trees Excluded: Trees that are dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200, or are safety risks due to root, trunk, or crown structure failure shall not be counted as protected trees. b. Residential: L RC, R-1, R-4 and R-8 Zones: Thirty percent (30%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. iL R-10, R-14, RM-F, RM-T, RM-U and RMH: Ten percent (10%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. c. All Other Zones: Five percent (5%) of the trees located on the lot shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. d. Utility Uses and Mineral Extraction Uses: Such operations shall be exempt from the protected tree retention requirements of this Chapter if removal can be justified in writing and approved by the Reviewing OfficiaL· e. Replacement Requirements: L When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. • ii. When a tree or tree cluster that is part of an approved tree retention plan cannot be retained, mitigation shall be required per . subsection H1ei of this Section. • iii. Unless replacement trees are being used as part of an enhancement project in a critical area or buffer, they shall not consist of any species listed in RMC 4-4-130H7d. f. Tree retention standards shall be applied to the net developable area. Land within critical areas and their buffers, as well as public rights-of-way, shall be eXCluded from the above calculation. If the number to be retained includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-half (1/2) tree shall be rounded up." In recent years. and prior to this change in regulations, we were requiring 25% tree retention in residential areas, or replacement, generally at 2:1 with a minimum 2-inch caliper. A "protected tree" is considered to be a minimum of 6-inch caliper, as measured at 54 inches above grade. There are situations where extensive site grading requires that all trees be removed. In those cases planting of new trees is required. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP . Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 (ph) jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us III. Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> 03/12/08 10:45 AM Jennifer: I got a note this morning about some clear cutting next to Randy Corman's house. I thought --that in 2007 before the POP election, Renton decided on an ordinance that would "save trees" in developments. In the past few months, along NE 4th --a CAMWEST Development across from the QFC, there were alot of trees ---now there aren't any. Did Renton pass this "save a tree" in developments or not? Thank you for any information you can provide. Claudia Donnelly " , :,' . . ~ .. " Denis Law", , . Mayor. ~ Janua~y f6; 2014 " Renate Beede'; " "".1725 Pierce Ave SE : Renton;WA98058 , "e'''' " " . ",' Department ofCommunity"anciEcorlOmic Devel~pment, " ,,," ,,,C.E:iChip"vincent, Administrater . ". " .. " " .; ,. SUBJECT: '" ,," "RESERVE"AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RE'SPONSE LETTER ,,', LUAi3-0oim"pp; ECF ' .. -.,- "Dear Mrs, Be~don: ::' . Than'kyou for your~omri1entsr~lated tothe Reserve at TiffanyPark;"datedDecember 9; 20h" ",herein you raised c6iJcerns to the City's notification process andcominent,period and the" " " proposed project.,yo~r letter will be added to"th e publ[crecordfor ~onsideiatio,; by'th'';'' "reviewingefficial and you have been added asa party of cecord, ,," "",, " ," Public coi'n~e';t was requested apprOpriately bytheCityusingthe follov..ing" rneas(j~es per code: (a) arlOtice board on the site; (b) ~ notIce in a"newspaper bfgenerallocaL,irculation',and (c) 'written ,nO"ticeismai"iedto ail prOperty e;"'nEi,s within threehu"ndred feet:(30(J') of'the subje~t prOperty: A 14:dayc'ommen't period" (noln'niited t6 bu~iriess days) isproyided" Once the" City " " ", issues a sEPAThresholdDetermination, fOllowin'g thecomrnenlperiod;then the"City"holds a 14: 'day appeal period,', ,,' " ," ''', ,," "" "," ,," " "," , . ' '. : However; giventhe"tact that "thel~was Holiday during the cO,mrnentperiodand the sensitive natureoftheproject the ~iiy ~a,s decided toextendthe cornmentperiod, The City has placed" the project "on hold pending the, receipfof additional infClrmation by the applicant, "Once the " "requested materials ha\"",, beensubrnittedto tneCitywill conduct an addiiionaltwo:week public , eommentperiod, ", " , . :: ,,' It should also ben6fed that 'the Publi~ i,iearing, which was tentatively scheduled on Jariuary23, ",20i4, has been cancelled and wil"lb~ "rescheduleifonceth~ 'reque~ted supplem~ntal materials have been received, Th(schedulingof thepubiiche~ring ~t lli,oo am is not being done with the interition'ofprecludingthose who work from providing 'input, ,All City land use application , he~r;ngs are held during City blJsiness hoursof8:00 am -5:00 pm: I apologize ;ithi~Is an " .. ' • incomienience to you(sched"ule .. If you ate unable to ~tt~nd your .concerns can stili be; .', " . presented befo c€! the CitY's Hearing Examiner\lia leiter.·· " , ,.' Notice ofthestartoftheadditionalcomment period, and the new tentative hearing date and .' time, \'iill be providedintheform"of: an.additionallette'~ toall property owners ;"'ithin.30ci feet: of the subject prop~rty; srnall pink notices,posted iii at least three cohspicuous places near the . property; and/or you will receive (inth~ mail) a courtesy copybftheoff:hold letter provided to the applicant."" ,,' . . ...., ,," " . . . " _ , <" , ... ' '-.. ' • < ~ -", . Mrs: Beedon .- Pag.2012 · January 16, 2014 '. '.' '. •• -' : The.·City ha's solicite'd wmmentsfrom the Renton School District about their ability to I. • · acco'mmodate any additional students generated by this proposal: A.Schoollmpact Fee, basecj on'new single-famil~ lots; wililikely be required in o.rdeno mitigate the P,i0po·sal:spoteriial.·· impacts to Renton School District . . .... · To addr'essyour concerns the applicant willbe requinid.to complywitn the Cit\"s developnnent .. ' . · regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which include . ,require~ents for mitig~ti~n for impacts caused by the devel~pnnent. .' '. . · " . -' " '. ..... .. . · The City willr~view theprop'osal with regard to the protectionQf valuable environmental .amenitiesmanyo·fwhich you mentionedin·yourletter. -'Ye'will be Working to ensure the ..•. . . developmer)t isas'compaiible 'aspossibl~ with the ecological balance of ihe ar'ea; Th~ goals of · the City are to preserve drainage patterns,protect grciundwatersupply,.pre~enterosion and to · preserve trees and naturalvegetation .. Adclitionally, the applicant is requiredto demonstrate' ,proper provisions for all' public' facilities (includingvehicular access, pedestria'ncirwlation, . · utilities; and services): Once the second .comment period is com'pleied y6u'may,requesta cOpy' olthe 'City's' Fire Departmentcommehts. These comments will alsob~ disclosed in a SEPA '. 'Defermination,Reportofwhich all parties of record will receive a copy once cOf11pleted. · The applicant has. provided Wetland, Arborist, Transportation,'GeotechnicaI/Soils, and Draina'ge '.' analysis, and potential nnitigation, prepared by certified professionals. Based on.the.· . geotechnical report provided, and the City's Critical Area Maps,;h~re does no'Lippear to be a .coal mine hazard located'ory ih? site... . . . " , .' . The 'projecthas b~ehplacedohl1old;pending there'ceipt of;" Habitat Data Report, analyiing .. , , . . .. ' .. ' .' . . .' , '. ., .. " .. · impacts to critical habitats for animals on the site. Additi.<inally, the Cityhas requested the '. applicant provide an independent secondary·review of the applicilnt's wetland;malysis and' · .iransportatio;'·a.nalysisand ihe effectiveness anhe propo,~edmitigation' . ': .1 As a reminder. the City hasplaced the project on hold. and cancelled the public hearing '.' originally scheduled on Jaiiuar{i3. 2014,. pending the rec.Hpt ofadditionolin(ofmotion by the applicant; . . . . .. .' Thank you for interest in this proje~tand if you have a'ny' f~rtherque~tions please'feel fr'ee to contact me at425'430-1219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thankyou.···· . ~~~ ~~~~ Planner . ", Renate Beedon 1725 Pierce Avenue S.E. Renton, WA Tel. 206-715-3785 December 9, 2013 • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve / LUA13-001572 ECF, PP Ms. Timmons: • The following are my concerns about the development as it is proposed: 1. I would like to start out by requesting that you extend the deadline for comments on this Project by three days, as we did not receive your notification until November 29th • Your notice is dated November 26, a Tuesday before the Thanksgiving holiday and it must have been apparent that the recipients would not receive the notice three days after it was dated. 2. The impact of the proposed development will have a negative impact on residents living nearby due to A. Increased traffic B. Loss of a buffer the current woods provide C. Increased number of students for the already filled to capacity schools D. Noise during construction E. Decreased value of existing residential property and decreased quality of life. Many residents purchased homes in this area because of the wood's and the buffer (sight and sound) they provide from other neighborhoods. I request that the city of Renton deny this development or at least reduce the amount of houses to be built and require a visual buffer of vegetation around its perimeter. 3. The impact to the environment is also significant, as there are wetlands and various wildlife in these woods. A. In my opinion, the wetlands are larger than the developer has outlined. I challenge the classification of those wetlands. I request that an assessment by an independent agency be performed as to the amount, size and classification of those wetlands. B. I believe that the studies provided by the developer are outdated and incorrect as the last wetland study was done after 2 months of draught. I request a copy of all the studies be made available. C. I oppose the storm water detention vault. D. There are numerous old trees in these woods and they should be preserved. I request an independent study of the trees". I dispute the number of trees quoted in your notice. • • (Page 2 of Renate Beedon letter of December 9, 2013 to Rocale Timmons) E. There is a considerable amount of wildlife in these woods, i.e. deer, bobcats, mountain beavers, pileated woodpeckers, hawks and more. I request an explanation on what is planned for the displaced wildlife. I also request that no trees be cut during nesting season. F. Development will cause rats in the woods to seek other places to live. They might all migrate to the neighboring properties. What is the developer and the City of Renton planning to do to mitigate this possibility? 4. I would like to know if there is a mine under this property and what impact that may have. 5. I request that the developer leave a buffer of trees along the Mercer Island Pipeline -this would provide a visual buffer for the existing houses east of that pipeline. 6. A path that goes from the Mercer Island Pipeline to the end of S.E. 18th Street has been used by residents as a shortcut for over 30 years. Will that path still be available to the current residents? 7. I challenge and oppose the proposed access extended from 1241h Place S.E. , crossing the Cedar River Pipeline. This access would increase traffic in an established neighborhood and would require the cutting of several beautiful old trees. This pipeline is used for recreational purposes and has been for over 30 years. Traffic crossing that pipeline would interrupt these recreational activities. Apparently, the developer has not gotten an agreement from Seattle City Light to build a road across the pipeline. I challenge that the City gives permission for the development before this agreement has been reached. 8. I request a statement from the Renton Fire Department that this new development meets the requirements for easy access in case of emergencies. 9. I request that you change the time of the public hearing on January 23'd from 10 am to a time after 5:30 p.m. to make it easier for working people to attend. 10. I challenge the paragraph "Optional Determination of non-significance, mitigated (DNS-M) for the reason that it is not clear when the comment and the appeal periods start and end, i.e. which phase are we in now? This notice of application does not state clearly what the appeal and comment periods for the project are. Sincerely, Renate Beedon Rocale Timmons From: Settt: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms. Anderson, • Rocale Timmons Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:55 AM 'Sheryl' Wayne Potter (wpotter@novastardev.com); Barbara Yarington (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) LUA13-001572 Comment Response Letter -Anderson Thank you for your email wherein you have raised concerns with respect to the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA13-001572). This email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. I will address your concerns as they have been raised. The applicant has recently applied for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used help the City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the next couple of months. The end of the public comment period does not preclude the public from participating in the remainder of the City's review. The City encourages public involvement throughout the entire process; an example being the Public Hearing which was tentatively scheduled for January 23,2014. . I also understand that you also have concerns related to access and you believe there is not adequate access being provided to the development. As part of our review we will be looking to ensure that the development provides adequate access. Finally you have requested that the City delay the process in order to provide adequate time to resolve the issues you have stated in your email. While the comment period, which ended on December 10, 2013 was not the end of the process for public participation we appreciate the neighborhoods concerns with respect to adequate time to comment given the fact that there was Holiday during the comment period. As a result the City will be extending the comment period and you should receive notice within the next couple of days as to the new deadline. Please feel free to contact me should you have any other questions or if would like to elaborate on your concerns. Again, thank you for your input. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 From: Sheryl [mailto:anderson7836@comcast.netj Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:59 PM To: Rocale Timmons; jilliian@rentonwas.gov Subject: new development in Tiffany Park Please put on the "Person of Interest" contact list, as this new effort on the part of a developer will impact me and my neighbors significantly. 1 _. - ------------------------------------------------~ Has anyone truly done an honest Aation about how this effort will impact .residents who live along SE 18 Street? There should be more than one primary access into such a large development, and more than one secondary access. As currently planned, this will create a very inefficient and unsafe situation for all concerned. There should be at least four access roads leading into and out of this new development. Please consider delaying the process of this activity until it is clearly understood in the affected neighborhood, and everyone's concerns are stated and resolved. Thank you, Sheryl Anderson anderson7836@comcast.net 1727 Monroe Ave. S.E. Renton, VVA 98058 2 . ',-. . DeriisLaw . 'MaY?f·. . Janu~ryi6,,2014 ,.' . ' "', · Karen Walter, .. " .' .,' '. .' , ." . Department of Community and Economic Devel6pment .... , . .' .•. ' C~,"(hip"Yincent,Administrator .. · l\IIuckleshoot indian Tribe Disheries Division. 39015 112nd,Ave SE ," · Auburn,wA,9,8092' , ,.' , . , SUBJECT: ,RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER ' LL!A13~OOlS72, ,PP/ECF " , ,. ", . DearMs, Walter: I, . ,Thank you'for yourcbmments related to the Reserve aUiffanYPark; dated December . ,-10,2013 wherein you requested thedty consider requiring the applicant e,nharice ' . 'st6rmwat~r t~eatme~tdue to eventual disc:hargeinto salmon~bearirigwaters; ':Specifically, you have, requ~si:e'dthe city reqiJire oii/water separ~to~s for:tiie proposed project, .; .. .'. .'. . '., . . . · Your letter has been includedin,the officiaLprojectfile andthe revie\ving offi~ialwill ... · consider y;ur' concerns and requ~stas part of their ;eview, Youhave'beeri madea .' .'.party ofreco'r,d and if you have a'n'y further questionsplea~efeelfree to contattme'at ... ' .425-430:7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa:gov,Thank you,,' '.' ", , .. . . . .' ... -'. . .' ; . E ' 51""!,,. -!~ OCI~d, , Se or Planner '.' . , ", -:: .-',' " . " .. :. ';l-' Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: • • Karen Walter < KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:14 AM Rocale Timmons Subject: RE: Tiffany Park LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance Attachments: Landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban watersheds.pdf; copper toxicity_visibility vulnerability juv coho salmon predation by cutthroat trout_McIntyre et al 2012.pdf; Copper_effects_on_Salmonids_-_Abstracts_C A Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Rocale, _ Woody1.pdf Follow up Flagged Thank you for assisting us with getting the referenced documents in the SEPA materials for the proposed Tiffany Park Reserve subdivision project (referenced above). We have reviewed these materials and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources: Our primary concern with this project is the proposed "basic treatment" of stormwater generated by the site that will discharge to Ginger Creek and eventually the Cedar River. We understand that the project's stormwater treatment approach meet the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). However as the stormwater will eventually discharge to salmon-bearing waters, we recommend that enhanced stormwater treatment, including oil/water separators be required for this project. Enhanced stormwater water quality treatment is needed to maximize the removal of PAHs and heavy metal pollutants found in stormwater that are harmful to salmon in downstream receiving waters. Additional information about these pollutants and impacts to salmon, including a risk assessment for Puget Sound Coho, can be found in the attached documents. We appreciate tlie opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the Renton's responses. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader . Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 7:47 AM To: Karen Walter . Subject: RE: Tiffany Park LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, Notice of Application Hello Karen, They sent the FTP site while I was out yesterday. Please see their attached email. If you have problems with the site let me know and I will try and attach the reports via email. 1 ---.---.- Rocale Timmons • From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 11:55 AM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Tiffany Park LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, Notice of Application Importance: High Hi Rocale, • I am checking in to see if you had a chance to get the Stormwater Tech Report, Wetland Determination and Tree Protection Plan that we would like to review before comments are due on this project tomorrow, 12/10. Thank you! Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 2 • • Copper: Adverse Effects on Salmonids Scientific Abatracts and References Compiled by: Dr. Carol Ann Woody Fisheries Research and Consulting Anchorage, AK carolw@alaskalife.net fish4thefuture.com The following information was collected from recent peer reviewed scientific publications. The full text of each article is available from the journal and publisher cited. Cu = copper. • Indicates annotations by C. Woody for clarification or explanation. Questions or comments or criticisms greatly appreciated. For information on the importance of olfaction to fish see the Salmon Ecology 101 Fact Sheet. Pyle, GG, and RS Mirza. 2007. Copper-impaired chemosensory function and behavior in aquatic animals. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 13 (3): 492 -505. Abstract: Chemosensation is one of the oldest and most important sensory modalities utilized by aquatic animals to provide information about the location of predators, location of prey, sexual status of potential mates, genetic relatedness of kin, and migratory routes, among many other essential processes. The impressive sophistication of chemical communication systems among aquatic animals probably evolved because of the selective pressures exerted by water as a "universal solvent." Impairment of chemosensation by toxicants at the molecular or cellular level can potentially lead to majC1[ perturbations at higher levels of biological organization. We have examined the consequences of metal-impaired chemosensory function in a range of aquatic animals that represents several levels of a typical aquatic ecosystem. In each case, low, environmentally relevant metal concentrations were sufficient to cause chemosensory dysfunction. Because the underlying molecular signal transduction machinery of chemosensory systems demonstrates a high degree of phylogenetic conservation, we speculate that metal-impaired chemosensation among phylogenetically disparate animal groups probably results from a common mechanism of impairment. We propose developing a chronic Chemosensory-based biotic ligand model (BlM) that maintains the advantages of the current BlM approach, while simultaneously overcoming known difficulties of the current gill-based approach and increasing the ecological relevance of current BlM predictions. 'Safe', heavy metals hit fish senses. 18:1609 April 2007. NewScientist.com news service. Aria Pearson Pollution far below the level seen as dangerous for aquatic life has nevertheless dramatically altered animal behaviour in North American lakes. Heavy metals are knocking out the sense of smell in organisms from bacteria to fish. Even wa may not be immune. Nathaniel Scholz, at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, Washington, and colleagues found that Salmon lose" their sense of smell if.there 'are 'even low levels o/copper in the water they are swimming ---------------------------------------- • in. The fish could die as a result, because they cannot smell chemicals that would warn of a nearby predator. All over the world, stonn water run-off shuttles heavy metals such as copper and zinc from industry, mines and built-up areas into natural water courses. The concentrations are generally low -too low for polluters to bother about, or so many of them seem to have thought. "Now we're going after [this] 'So what?' question," says Scholz. Scholz's team kept young coho salmon in tanks with different concentrations of copper for 3 hours, then· measured their movements when a drop of salmon skin extract was added to the water. In the Wild, the skin would be a cue that a predator may have injured a fish nearby. Unexposed salmon stopped swimming, sank to the bottom of the tank and kept still -typical tactics for avoiding predators. But fish exposed to concentrations of copper as low as 2 parts per billiOn (ppb) just - stopped for a few seconds, or merely slowed down, while fish exposed to 10 or more ppb didn't notice the cue at all (Environmental Science and Technology, 001: 10.1021/es062287r). The US Environmental Protection Agency has set the maximum safe level of copper for aquatic life at 13 parts per billion, well above that needed to wipe out the salmon's ability to sense chemical cues. Yet Greg Pyle, at Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario, Canada. has found chemosensory problems at three levels of the food chain at or below 5 ppb, the lim~ set by Ontario's water qual~ standards. 'The phenomenon is ubiquitous," he says. Leeches lost their ability to smell food, zooplankton were unable to evade predators, and fathead minnows couldn't recognize their eggs: the fish ate them instead of protecting them. The contamination in these lakes is much too weak to kill these organisms outright, Pyle says, yet their populations are suffering. Metals may have the same effect in humans. The makers of the cold remedy Zicam, which contains zinc, recently settled oUt of court for $12 million with people who reported losing their sense of smell after spraying the product into their noses. The company maintains the remedy is safe. Studies have not been conducted to test whether zinc destroys human sensory abilities, but given whafs happening in aquatic ecosystems, Pyle believes it COUld. "Don't squirt metals up your nose," he says. 'That would be my advice'. Sandahl, JF, DH Baldwin, JJ Jenkins and NL Schlotz. 2007. A sensory system at the interface between urban stormwater runoff and salmon survival. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 :2998-3004. Abstract: Motor vehicles are a major source of toxic contaminants such as copper, a metal that originates from vehicle exhaust and brake pad wear. Copper and other pollutants are deposited on roads and other impervious surfaces and then transported to aquatic habitats via stormwater runoff. In the western United States, exposure to non-point source pollutants such as copper is an emerging concern for many populations of threatened and endangered Pacific salmon 1 Oncorhynchus spp.)that spawn and rear in coastal watersheds and estuaries. To address this concern, we used conventional neurophysiological recordings to investigate the impact of ecologically relevant copper exposures 10-20 flg/L for 3 h) on the olfactory system of juvenile coho salmon 10, kisurcli/, These recordings were combined w~ computer-assisted video analyses of behavior to evaluate the sensitivity and responsivaness of copper-exposed coho to a chemical predation cue Icon specific alarm pheromone). The sensory physiology and predator avoidance behaviors of juvenile coho were both significantly impaired by copper at concentrations as low as . 2 flg/L Therefore, copper-containing stormwater runoff from urban landscapes has the potential to cause chemosensory deprivation and increased predation mortality in exposed salmon. Baldwin, DH, JF Sandahl, JS Labenia, and NL Schloz. 2003. Sublethal effects of copper on coho salmon: impacts on nonoverlapping 2 • • receptor pathways in the peripheral olfactory nervous system. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 10:2266-2274. Abstract: The sublethal effects of copper on the sensory physiology of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) were evaluated. In vivo field potential recordings from the olfactory epithelium (electrCH>lfactograms) were used to measure the impacts of copper on the responses of olfactory receptor neurons to natural odorants (L-serine and taurocholic acid) and an odorant mixture (L-arginine. L-aspartic acid. L-Ieucine. and L-serine) over a range of stimulus concentrations. Increases in copper impaired the neurophysiological response to all odorants within 10 min of exposure. The inhibitory effects of copper (1.0-20.0 mgIL) were dose dependent and they were not influenced by water hardness. Toxicity thresholds for the different receptor pathways were determined by using the benchmark dose method and found to be similar (a 2.3-3.0 mglL increase in total dissolved copper over background). Collectively. examination of these data indicates that copper is broadly toxic to the salmon olfactory nervous system. Consequently. short-term influxes of copper to surface waters may interfere with olfactory-mediated behaviors that are critical for the survival and migratory success of wild salmon ids. Hansen, JA, JD Rose, RA Jenkins, KG Gerow, HL Bergman. 1999. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to copper: neurophysiological and histological effects on the olfactory system. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 9:1979-1991. Abstract: Olfactory epithelial structure and olfactory bulb neurophysiological responses were measured in chinook salmon and rainbow trout in response to 25 to 300 IIg copper (Cu)lL. Using confocal laser scanning microscopy. the number of olfactory receptors was significantly reduced in chinook salmon exposed to greater than or equal to 50 IIg CulL and in rainbow trout exposed to greater than or equal to 200 IIg CulL for 1 h. The number of receptors was significantly reduced in both species following exposure to 25 IIg CulL for 4 h. Transmission electron microscopy of olfactory epithelial tissue indicated that the loss of receptors was from cellular necrosis. Olfactory bulb electroencephalogram (EEG) responses to 10(-3) M L-serine were initially reduced by all Cu concentrations but were virtually eliminated in chinook salmon exposed to greater than or equal to 50 IIg CulL and in rainbow trout exposed to greater than or equal to 200 IIg Cull within 1 h of exposure. Following Cu exposure. EEG response recovery rates were slower in fish exposed to higher Cu concentrations. The higher sensitivity of the chinook salmon Olfactory system to Cu-induced histological damage and neurophysiological impairment parallels the relative species sensitivity observed in behavioral avoidance experiments. This difference in species sensitivity may reduce the survival and reproductive potential of chinook salmon compared with that of rainbow trout in Cu- contaminated waters. Dethloff, GM, D Schlenk, JT Hamm, and HC Bailey. 1999. Alterations in physiological parameters of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus myk/ss) with exposure to copper and copper/zinc mixtures. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 42(3):253-264. Abstract: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were exposed to sublethal concentrations of copper (Cu. 14 mu g/liter or parts per billion) and zinc (Zn. 57 and 81 mu gniter or ppb) for a 21-day period. The four treatments included a control. a Cu control. a Cu and low-Zn treatment and a Cu and high-Zn treatment. Selected parameters [e.g .• hemoglobin (Hb). hematocrit (Hel). plasma glucose. lactate and cortisol. differentialleukocyle count, respiratory burst, tissue metal concentrations. hepatic metallothionein (MD. brain acetylcholinesterase (AChE)] mere evaluated at 2. 7. 14. and 21 days of exposure, Whole blood and 3 • • plasma parameters mere not altered by exposure to metals. The percentage of lymphocytes was consistently decreased in the three metal treatments. while percentages of neutrophils and monocytes mere increased. Respiratory burst activity was elevated in all metal treatments. Gill Zn concentration was highly variable. with no Significant alterations occurring. Gill Cu concentration was elevated above control levels in all metal treatments. Gill Cu concentration in the two CulZn treatments was also elevated above levels in the Cu control. Hepatic metal concentrations and MT levels were not aHered from control values. Measurements of brain AChE indicated an elevation in this parameter across metal treatments. In general. alterations in physiological parameters appeared to be due to Cu. w~h Zn having no interactive effect. Hansen JA, Lipton J, Welsh PG. 2002. Environmental toxicology and chemistry. 21 (3): 633-639. Abstract: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were recently listed as threatened in the United States under the federal Endangered Species Act. Past and present habitat for this species includes waterways . contaminated with heavy metals released from mining activities. Because the sensitivity of this species to copper was previously unknown. we conducted acute copper toxicity tests with bull ('bull trout are an endangered type of charr like Dolly Varden) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in side-by-side comparison tests. Bioassays were conducted using water at two temperatures (8 degrees C and 16 degrees C) and two hardness levels (100 and 220 mg/L as CaCO,). At a water hardness of 100 mg/L both' species were less sensitive to copper when tested at 16 degrees C compared to 8 degrees C. The two species had similar sensitivity to copper in 100-mg/L hardness water. but bull trout were 2.5 to 4 times less sensitive than rainbow trout in 220-mg/L hardness water. However. when our results were viewed in the context of the broader I~erature on rainbow trout sensitivity to copper. the sens~ivitles of the two species appeared similar. This suggests that adoption of toxicity thresholds that are protective of rainbow trout would be protective of bull trout; however. an additional safety factor may be warranted because of the additional level of protection necessary for this federally threatened species. Brix KV, DeForest OK, Adams WJ. 2001. Assessing acute and chronic copper risks to freshwater aquatic life using species sensitivity distributions for different taxonomic groups, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20 (8): 1846-1856. Abstract: Using copper as an example. we present a method for assessing chemical risks to an aquatic community using species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) for different taxonomic groups. This method frts probability models to chemical exposure and affects data to estimate the percentage of aquatic species potentially at risk and expands on existing probabilistic risk assessment methodologies. Due to a paucity of chronic toxicity data for many chemicals. this methodology typically uses an acute-chronic ratio (ACR) to estimate the chronic effects distribution from the acute effects distribution. We expanded on existing methods in two ways. First. copper SSDs were developed for different organism groups (e.g .• insects. fish) that share similar sensHivHies or ecological functions. Integration of exposure and effects distributions provides an estimate of which organism groups may be at risk. These results were then compared with a site-specific food web. allowing an estimation of whether key food web components are potentially at risk and whether the overall aquatic community may be at risk from the perspective of ecosystem function. Second. chronic SSDs were estimated using the relationship between copper ACRs and acute toxicity (I.e .• the less acutely sensitive a species. the larger the ACR). This correction in the ACR removes concems previously identified with use of the ACR and allows evaluation of a Significantly expanded chronic data set with the same approach as that for assessing acute risks. 4 • • Goldstein, IN, DF Woodward, and AM Farag. 1999. Movement of adult Chinook salmon during spawning migration in a metals-contaminated system, Coeur d'Alene River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:121-129. Abstract: Spawning migration of adu~ male chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ~as monnored by radio telemetry to determine their response to the presence of metals contamination in the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River, Idaho. The North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River is relatively free of metals -contamination and was used as a control. In all, 45 chinook salmon were transported from their natal stream, Wolf Lodge Creek, tagged with radio transmitters, and released in the Coeur d'Alene River 2 km downstream of the confluence of the South Fork and the North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River. Fixed telemetry receivers were used to monitor the upstream movement of the tagged chinook salmon through the' confluence area for 3 weeks after release. During this period, general water qualHy and metals concentrations were monitored in the study area. Of the 23 chinook salmon observed to move upstream " from the release site and through the confluence area, the majority (16 fish, 70%) moved up the North Fork, and moved up the North Fork, and only 7 fish (30%) moved up the South Fork, where greater metals concentrations Vo(ere observed. Ourresults·agree wHh laboratory findings and suggest· that natural fish Populations will avoid tributaries wHh high metals contamination. . Dethloff, GM, and HC Bailey. 1998. Effects of Copper on Immune System Parameters of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 17(9):1807-1814. Abstract: Agricultural, urban, industrial, and mining sources release metals' into waterways. The effects of slibleth!ji Concentrations of metals on integrated physiological processeffi in fish, such as immunocOIl1Petency,are nofwellunderstood: The objective of this study was to determine the physiological effects of a range of sublethal copper concentrations (6.4, 16.0, and 26.9 mu g Cull) on Shasta-strain rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed in soft water. Troutwere sa.mpled!l\ler.3, 7, 1,4,.8nd'21:d of exposure, to cOpper. the Percentage ofrnonocytesw8s conSistently elevated 8t26:9 niug euI1;'~iidthe,'pEircEintlige,oflymphocytes'was decreased, A cOnSistent increase in the percenlageof neutrophilsoccurred ,at 26.9 and.6.4mu,g,Cull. Respiratory burst activHy was decreased for all cqncentrations alall sampling days, but Ii Significant reduction occurred only at 14 and 21 d of exposure to cOpper. B-like cell proliferation was decreased("ln short, all this means that the immune system of fish was affected by Cu exposure. Woody) by exposure to the higher copper concentrations, Proliferation results, however, had high variabilHy, T-like cell proliferation and phagocytosis were not altered. HepatiC copper concentration was consistently elevated in trout exposed to 26.9 mu g CulL; no correlation was found between hepatic copper concentration and the Immune system responses investigated. Consistent alterations in immunological parameters suggest that these parameters could serve as indicators of chronic metal toxicity in natural systems. Buhl, KJ and SJ Hamilton. 1991. Relative sensitivity of early life stages of arctic grayling, coho salmon, and rainbow trout to nine inorganics. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2:184-197. Abstract: The acute toxiCity of nine inorganics associated with placer mining sediments to early life stages of Arctic grayling (Thymal/us arcficus), coho salmon {Oncorhynchus kisufch), and rainbow trout (0. mykiss) was determined in soft water (hardness, 41 mg IHer-CaCO,) at 12"C, The relative toxicities of the inorganics varied by four orders of magnitude; from most toxic to least toxic, the rank order was cadmium, 5 ---------------- • • silver, mercury, nickel, gold, arsenite, selenite, se.lenate, and hexavalent chromium. In general, juvenile life stages of the three species tested were more sensitive to these inorganics than the alevin life stage. Among juveniles, no single species was consistently more sensitive to the inorganics than another, among alevins, Arctic grayling were generally more sensitive than coho salmon and rainbow trout. Based on the results of the present study, estimated no-effect concentrations of arsenic and mercury, but not cadmium, chromium, gold, nickel, selenium, or silver, are close to their concentrations reported in streams with active placer mines in Alaska. Thus, arsenic (as arsenite(lII)) and mercury may pose a hazard to Arctic grayling and coho salmon in Alaskan streams with active placer mines. Saiki, MK, DT Castleberry, TW May, BA Martin, and FN Bu"ard. 1995. Copper, cadmium, and zinc concentrations in aquatic food-chains from the upper Sacramento River (California) and selected tributaries. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 29(4):484- 491. Abstract: Metals enter the Upper Sacramento River above Redding, California, primarily through Spring Creek, a tributary that receives acid-mine drainage from a US EPA Super-fund site known locally as Iron Mountain Mine. Waterweed (Elodea canadensis) and aquatic insects (midge larvae, Chironomidae; and mayfly nymphs, Ephemeroptera) from the Sacramento River downstream from Spring Creek contained much higher concentrations of copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), and zinc (Zn) than did similar taxa from nearby reference tributaries not exposed to acid-mine drainage. Aquatic insects from the Sacramento River contained especially high maximum concentrations of Cu (200 mglkg dry weight in midge larvae), Cd (23 mglkg dry weight in mayfly nymphs), and Zn (1,700 mglkg dry weight in mayfly nymphs). Although not always statistically significant, whole-body concentrations of Cu, Cd, and Zn in fishes (threespine stickleback, Gastarostaus aculaatus; Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis; Sacramento squaw- . fish, P/ychocheilus grandis; and chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the Sacramento River were generally higher than in fishes from the reference tributaries. Baatrup, E. Structural and Functional-Effects of Heavy-Metals on the Nervous-System, Including Sense-Organs, of Fish. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C-Pharmacology Toxicology & Endocrinology. 1991; 100(1-2):253-257. Abstract: Today, fish in the environment are inevitably exposed to chemical pollution. Although most hazardous substances are present at concentrations far below the lethal level, they may still cause serious damage to the life processes of these animals. Fish depend on an intact nervous system, including their sense organs, for mediating relevant behavior such as food search, predator recognition, communication and orientation. Unfortunately, the nervous system is most vulnerable and injuries to its elements may dramatically change the behavior and consequently the survival of fish. Heavy metals are well known pollutants in the aquatic environment. Their interaction with relevant chemical stimuli may interfere with the communication between fish and environment. The affinity for a number of ligands and macromolecules makes heavy metals most potent neurotoxins. The present Mini- Review highlights some aspects of how trace concentrations of mercury, copper and lead affect the integrity of the fish nervous system; structurally, physiologically and biochemically. 6 • • Oregon study shows copper from brake pads affects salmon CORVALLIS, Ore., Oregon State University issued the following news release: Copper deposited on roads by the wearing of brake pads is transported in runoff to streams and rivers, where it may playa key role in increasing predation of threatened and endangered salmon throughout California and the Pacific Northwest. According to a study released this week in Environmental Science and Technology, levels of copper as low as 2 parts per billion have a direct impact on the sensory systems of juvenile coho salmon. The skin of juvenile salmon is equipped with a special kind of warning system, said Nat Scholz, a researcher at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Fisheries Service. When a salmon is attacked by a predator, a chemical cue is released from the skin that signals danger to nearby fish. These fish smell the predation cue and take behavioral measures to avoid being eaten. Oregon State University researchers working with scientists from NOAA Fisheries, found that fish exposed to low. environmentally realistic levels of copper had an impaired sense of smell and were less responsive to the chemical alarm Signal. At elevated concentrations of copper, these predator avoidance behaviors were largely abolished. Copper naturally occurs in aquatic environments at trace amounts as a background element. However, fluctuations due to run-off from storm events can increase the level of copper in the water from close to zero to more than 60 parts per billion in some instances, said Jason Sandahl, who co-authored the study while working as an OSU doctoral research assistant at the NOAA research laboratory. 'There is a fine line between active copper uptake and copper toxicity,' said Sandahl. 'We see problems when copper is pulsed into the water, temporarily elevating the copper higher than the natural background level. The olfactory, or scent, neurons are not able to maintain the normal regulation of copper, and the neurons are either disrupted or killed.' Salmon are known to avoid environmental gradients of copper, such as those created by point-source discharges. However, copper in stormwater is a diffuse form of non-point source pollution, and it is unlikely that juvenile fish could reduce their exposure through avoidance behaviors, said the researchers. . As a result of automobile braking and exhaust, higher levels of copper contamination have been observed in streams close to roads and highways: Building materials and certain pesticide formulations are also important sources of copper in western landscapes, said Scholz. Recent monitoring of northern California streams following storm events found dissolved copper levels averaging 15.8 parts per billion per liter of water. Salmon exposed to copper at concentrations well below this average showed significant impairment to both their sensory physiology and predator avoidance behavior, said Sandahl, whose work on the study was funded in part by a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant to OSU. The work was also supported by NOAA's national Coastal Storms Program. 7 • • Since the duration of storm events that cause elevated levels of copper in streams can be relatively short, investigators exposed juvenile coho salmon to copper for only a few hours. In earlier studies they found the onset of copper neurotoxicity to salmon olfactory systems occurs within a matter of minutes. Loss of sensory function is likely reversible, but may take hours or days of the fish being in clean water, said the researchers. If copper exposures are high enough to cause the death of olfactory sensory neurons, it will take several weeks to months for the fish to regenerate new neurons and recover. The levels of copper contaminant used in the study were at or below current federal regulatory guidelines for heavy metals, said Jeff Jenkins, an environmental tOXicologist in OSU's Col/ege of Agricultural Sciences. 'It's just like they were poisoned,' said Jenkins. 'Of aI/ the chemicals we have looked at, this effect was clearly happening at levels well below the current copper standards for water quality. It raises the question of whether the current standards are as protective as we thought.' The current study is an example of how contaminants can disrupt the chemical ecology of aquatic organisms. In the case of salmon, a sublethal loss of sensory function may increase predation mortality in urbanizing watersheds. The influence of copper on predator-prey interactions is the focus of ongoing research, with the eventual aim of linking individual survival to the productivity of wild salmon populations, said Scholz. Though the study was conducted on juvenile salmon, the results are applicable to fish species in urban watersheds worldwide, said the researchers. Dissolved copper has been shown to affect the olfactory systems of chinook salmon, rainbow trout, brown trout, fathead minnow, Colorado pikeminnow and tilapia. Barry, KL, JA Grout, CD Levings, BH Nidle, and GE Piercy. 2000. Impacts of acid mine drainage on juvenile salmonids in an estuary near Britannia Beach in Howe Sound, British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 2032-2043. Abstract: The abandoned copper mine at Britannia Beach, British Columbia, has been releasing acid mine drainage (AMD) into Howe Sound for many years. To assess the impacts of AMD on juvenile salmonids in the Britannia Creek estuary, we compared fish abundance, distribution, and survival at contaminated sites near the creek with uncontaminated areas in Howe Sound. Water quality near Britannia Creek was poor, particularly in spring when dissolved Cu exceeded1.0 mg'L-1 and pH was less than 6. Beach seine surveys conducted during April-August 1997 and March-May1998 showed that chum salmon (Oncorhynchus ketal fry abundance was significantly lower near Britannia Creek mouth(0-1.2·100 m-2) than in reference areas (11.5-31.4,100 m-2). Laboratory bioassays confirmed that AMD from Britannia Mine was toxic to juvenile chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and chum salmon (96-h LCSO = 0.7- 29.7% in freshwater and 12.6-62.2% in 10 ppt water). Chinook salmon smolts transplanted to surface cages near Britannia Creek experienced100% mortality within 2 days. These results demonstrated that juvenile salmonids are vulnerable to AMD from.Britannia Creek: their abundance peaks during spring when Cu concentrations are highest and tOxicity is greatest in surface freshwater, which matches their preferred vertical distribution. 8 • • Eisler, R. COPPER HAZARDS TO FISH, WILDLIFE, AND INVERTEBRATES: A SYNOPTIC REVIEW. U.S. Geological Survey, Laurel, MD 20708 Excerpt specific to fish: Fishes Adverse sublethal effects of copper on behavior, growth, migration, and metabolism occur in representative species of fishes at nominal water concentrations between 4 and 10 IlglL. In sensitive species of teleosts, copper adversely affects reproduction and survival from 10-20 Ilg Cull (Hodson et al. 1979; Table 5). Copper exerts a wide range of physiological effects in fishes, including increased metallothionein synthesis in hepatocytes, altered blood chemistry, and histopathology of gills and skin (Iger et al. 1994). At environmentally realistic concentrations, free copper adversely affects resistance of fishes to bacterial diseases; disrupts migration (that is, fishes avoid copper-contaminated spawning grounds); alters locomotion through hyperactivity; impairs respiration; disrupts osmoregulation through inhibition of gill Na+-K+-activated ATPase; is associated with tissue structure and pathology of kidneys, liver, gills, and other hematopoietic tissues; impacts mechanoreceptors of lateral line canals; impairs functions of olfactory organs and brain; and is associated with changes in blood chemistry, enzyme activities, and corticosteroid metabolism (Hodson et al. 1979). Copper-induced cellular changes or lesions occur in kidneys, lateral line, and livers of several species of marine fishes (Gardner and LaRoche 1973). Copper-induced mortality in teleosts is reduced in waters with high concentrations of organic sequestering agents and in genetically resistant species (Hodson et al. 1979). At pH values less than 4.9 (that is, at pH values associated with increased aluminum solubility and toxicity), copper may contribute to the demise of acid-sensitive fishes (Hickie et al. 1993). Copper affects plasma Na+ and gill phospholipid activity; these effects are modified by water temperature and hardness (Hansen et al. 1993). In red drum, copper toxicity is higher at comparatively elevated temperatures and reduced salinities (Peppard et al. 1991). copper is acutely toxic to freshwater teleosts in soft water at concentrationsb.etweeh 10 arid 201l9/L (NAS 1977). In rainbow trout, copper toxicity is markedly lower at high salinities (Wilson and Taylor 1993). Comparatively elevated temperatures and copper loadings in the medium cause locomotor disorientation of tested species (Kleerekoper t~73); Copper may affect reproductive success of fish through disruption of hatch coordination with food availability or through adverse effects on larval fishes (Ellenberger et al. 1994). Chronlceicpeisureof representative species of teleoststo low concentrations (5;toAOJ.lg/ljofcopperin water containing low concentrations of organic materials adversely'affects$urifival: growth, and spawning; this range is 66 to 120 IIg Cu/Lwhen tesfwatel'$ contain enriched loadings of organic materials (Hodson etal. 1979). Larval and early juvenile stages of eight species of freshwater fishes are more sensitive to copper than embryos (McKim et al. 1978) or adults (Hodson et al. 1979). But larvae of topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) are increasingly sensitive to copper with increasing age. Topsmelt sensitivity is associated with increasing respiratory surface area and increasing cutaneous and branchial uptake of copper (McNulty et al. 1994). Sublethal exposure of fishes tei copper suppresses res is lance to viral and bacterial pathogens (Rougier et al. H,l94) and, in the case of the air-breathing catfish (Saccobranchus fossilis), affects humoral and cell-mediated immunity, the skin, and respiratory surfaces (Khangarot and 9 , ( • Tripathi 1991). Rainbow trout exposed to 50 I1g CulL for 24 h-a sublethal concentration-show degeneration of olfactory receptors that may cause difficulties in olfactory-mediated behaviors such as migration (Klima and Applehans 1990). The primary site of sublethal copper toxicity in rainbow trout is the ion transport system of the gills (Hansen et al. 1993). Dietary copper is more important than waterborne copper in reducing survival and growth of larvae of rainbow trout (Woodward et al. 1994). Simultaneous exposure of rainbow trout to dietary and waterborne copper results in significant copper assimilation. Diet is the main source of tissue copper; however, the contribution of waterborne copper to tissue burdens increases as water concentrations rise (Miller et al. 1993). Rate and extent of copper accumulations in fish tissues are extremely variable between species and are further modified by abiotic and biological variables. Copper accumulations in fish gills increase with increasing concentrations of . free copper in solution, increasing dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and decreasing pH and alkalinity (Playle et al. 1993a, 1993b). Starved Mozambique tilapia accumUlate significantly more copper from the medium in 96 h than did tilapia fed a diet containing 5.9 mg Culkg OW ration (Pelgrom et al. 1994). The bioconcentration factor for whole larvae of the fathead minnow was 290 after exposure for 30 h, but only 0.1 in muscle of bluegills after 660 h (USEPA 1980). Prior exposure of brown bullheads (/cta/urus nebu/osus) to 83 sublethal copper concentrations for 20 days before exposure to lethal copper concentrations produces higher copper concentrations in tissues of dead bullheads than in those not previously exposed; however, the use of tissue residues is not an acceptable autopsy procedure for copper (Brungs et al. 1973). Rising copper concentrations in blood plasma of catfish (Heteropneustes fossilis) seem to reflect copper stress, aHhough the catfish appear outwardly normal. Plasma copper concentrations of catfish increase from 290 I1g CulL in controls at start to 380 I1g CulL in survivors at 72 h (50% dead); a plasma copper concentration of 1,060 I1g CulL at 6 h is associated with 50% mortality (Banerjee and Homechaudhuri 1990). In rainbow trout, copper is rapidly eliminated from plasma; the half-time persistence is 7 min for the short-lived component and 196 min for the long-lived component (Carbonell and Tarazona 1994). Attraction to waters containing low (11 to 17 119/L) concentrations of copper occurs in several species of freshwater teleosts, including goldfish (Carassius auratus) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyane/lus); however, other species, including white suckers (Catostomus commersonil), avoid these waters (Kleerekoper 1973). In avoidancelattraction tests, juvenile rainbow trout avoided waters containing 70 I1g CulL but were significantly attracted to water containing 4,560 I1g CulL; a similar pattern was observed in tadpoles of the American toad, Bufo american us (Birge et al. 1993). Copper concentrations in the range of 18 to 28 I1g/L interfere with bluegill growth and prey choice (Sand heinrich and Atchison 1989). Copper interferes with the ability of fish to respond positively to L-alanine, an important constituent of prey odors; concentrations as low as 1 I1g CulL inhibit this attraction response in some species (Steele et al. 1990). Increased tolerance to copper was observed in fathead minnows after prolonged exposure to sublethal concentrations, but tolerance was not sustained on removal to clean water. Copper tolerance in fathead minnows is attributed to increased production of metallothioneins (Benson and Birge 1985). Copper tolerance in rainbow trout seems dependent on changes in sodium transport and permeability (Lauren and McDonald 1987a). 10 • • Further Reading Engel, D.W., Sunda, w.G., and Fowler, BA 1981. Factors affecting trace metals uptake and toxicity to estuarine organisms. I. Environmental parameters. In Biological monitoring of marine pollutants. Edited by F.J. Vernberg, C A. alabrese, F.P. Thurberg, and W.B. Vernberg. Academic Press, New York. pp. 127-144. Featherstone, A.M., and O'Grady, B.v. 1997. Removal of dissolved copper and iron at the freshwater-saltwater interface of an acid mine stream. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34: 332-337. Foster, P., Hunt, D.T.E., and Morris, A.W. 1978. Metals in an acid mine stream and estuary. Sci. Total Environ. 9: 75-86. Fromm, .P.O. 1980. A review of some physiological and toxicological responses of freshwater fish to acid stress. Environ. BioI. Fishes, 5: 79-93. . Bjerselius R, Winberg S, Winberg Y, Zeipel K. 1993. Ca21 protects olfactory receptor function against acute Cu(lI) toxiCity in Atlantic salmon. Aquat Toxico/25:125-138. 34. Saunders RL, Sprague JB. 1967. Effects of copper-zinc mining pollution on a spawning migration of Atlantic salmon. Water Res 1 :419-432. I 1 Ecological Applications. 22(5), 2012, 'pAo-i471 <02012 by the Ecological Society of America • Low-level copper exposures increase visibility and vulnerability of juvenile coho salmon to cutthroat trout predators JENlfER K. McINTYRE,1,3 DAvlD H. BALDWIN,2 DAVID A. BF.AUCHAMP,1 AND NATHANIEL L. SCHOLZ2 'School o.lAquatic and Fishery SciencL's, University oj Washington, 1122 NE Boat Slreet, Sealtle, Washington 9810j USA 2N O AA Fisheries, North\~'est Fisheries Science Center. 2725 .Mon/lake Boulevard Easl, Sealtlc, Washington 98112 USA Abstract. Copper contamination in surface waters is common in watersheds with mining activities or agricultural, industrial, commercial, and residential human land uses. This widespread pollutant is neurotoxic to the chemosensory systems of fish and other aquatic species. Among Pacific salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), copper-induced olfactory impaimlent has previously been shown to disrupt behaviors reliant on a functioning sense of smelL For juvenile coho salmon (0. kisUfch), this includes predator avoidance behaviors triggered by a chemical alann cue (conspecific skin extract). However, the survival consequences of this sublethal neurobehavioral toxicity have not been explored. In the present study juvenile coho were exposed to low levels of dissolved copper (5-20 rtg/L for 3 h) and lhen presenled with cues signaling the proximity of a predator. Unexposed coho showed a sharp reduction in swimming activity in response to both conspecific skin extract and the upstream presence of a cutthroat trout predator (0. clarki clarki) previously fed juvenile coho. This alann response was absent in prey fish that were exposed to copper. Moreover, cutthroat trout were more effective predators on copper-exposed coho during predation trials, as measured by attack latency, survival time, and capture sLlccess rate. The shift in predator-prey dynamics was similar when predators and prey were co-exposed to copper. Overall, we show that copper- exposed coho are unresponsive to their chemosensory environment, unprepared to evade nearby predators, and significantly less likely to survi:ve an attack sequence, Our findings contribute to a growing understanding of how common environmental contaminants alter the chemical ecology of aquatic communities. Key words: alarm behavior; coho salmon; copper; CUlIhroat trout; olfaction; predation: .~kill extract; sublellwl; sUrI'il'ol. lr-:TRODUCTION Various forms of water pollution arc known to interfere with chemical communication in aquatic habitats (Sutterlin 1974). There are senders and receivers of chemical signals both within and among species in aquatic communities, and certain contaminants are directly (oxic to the olfactory, mechanosensory, or gustatory sensory neurons of receivers. This foml of sublethal ccotoxicity has been termed info-disruption (Lurling and Scheffer 2007) because il diminishes or distorts the sensory inputs that convey important information about an animal's surrounding environ- ment. Contaminant-exposed receivers thereby respond inappropriately (or not at all) to cues that signal the proximity and status of predators, mates, food, and other factors that can influence growth, survival, distribution, or reproduction. Manuscript received 7 November 2011; revised 26 March 2012; accepted 29 March 2012. Corresponding Editor: K. Tierney. 3 Present address: Washington State University, Puyallup Research and Extension Center, 2606 West Pioneer, Puyal- lup. Washington 9837l USA. £·mail: jen.mcintyre@wsu.edu One of the most extensively studied examples of info- disruption is the neurotoxicity of dissolved copper to the peripheral olfaclory syslem of fish (Tierney ct al. 2010). Olfact.ory receptor neurons are located in the epithelium of the olfactory rosette, within the nasal cavity. Cilia containing odor receptors extend from the apical surfaces of olfactory neurons into the nasal cavity, separated from ambient waters by a thin layer of mucous. Olfactory receptor neurons are continuously exposed to ambient waters and are therefore highly vulnerable to dissolved toxicants in aquatic habitats. Copper is a widely occurring pollutant in association with diverse human activities, including agricultural, industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. For example. copper is used in various agriculture and homeowner pesticide fonnulations, in building materi- als, as an anti[oulant in hull paints for vessels, and in motor vehicle friction materials (i.e., brake pads). ~s a consequence, copper is commonly transported to aquatic systems in land-based storrnwatcr runoff (Davis et a1. ·2001). Copper contamination is also associated with hard rock mining and municipal wastewater discharges. Similar to fish mechanosensory receptor neurons (Le., lateral line; Linbo ct al. 2006), olfactory reccplor 1460 July 2012 • COPPER ON PREDATION OF JUVENILE cA 1461 neurons undergo cell death in response to dissolved copper concentrations abov~ approximately 20 Ilg/L (Julliard et aL 1996, Hansen et aL 1999). At lower concentrations in the 2-20 Ilg/L range, dissolved copper reversibly inhibits the physiological responsiveness of olfactory receptor neurons in a concentration-dependent manner (Baldwin et aL 2003, Sandahl et aL 2004). The 'loss of sensory function occurs rapidly, within the first few minutes of copper exposure (Baldwin et a1. 2003). In most fish species that have been studied to date, peripheral sensory neurons do not acclimate to copper during exposures lasting days (Julliard et a!. 1996, Linbo et a!. 2006) or weeks (Saucier et a!. 1991, Saucier and Astie 1995). Chemical signals of predation risk arc an ecologically important category of olfactory infonnation for fish (Wisenden 2000, Ferrari et a!. 2010). For many spccies (Chivers andSmith 1998), including juvenile salmonids, an olfactory alarm cue released via mechanical tearing of the skin (e.g., during a predation event) triggers predator avoidance behaviors by nearby conspccifics. Juvenile salmon and trout, for example, become motionless in response to the alarm cue (Brown and Smith 1997, Berejikian et al. 1999, Scholz et a!. 2000). This reduces their visibility and corresponding vulner- ability to attack by motion-sensitive predators such as piscivorous fishes and birds (Webb 1986, Martel and Dill 1995). Numerous studies have demonstrated a survival benefit for a1arm-cue-responsive prey (Mirza and Chivers 2001, 2003, Chivers et al. 2002). Previous studies have shown that peripheral olfactory toxicity and diminished sensory responsiveness corre- spond to a disruption in alann behaviors in copper- exposed fish (Beyers and Farmer 200 I, Sandahl et a!. 2007). For·individual juvenile coho salmon (Ollcorhyn- elms kisutch), loss of alarm behavior triggered by an ecologically relevant olfactory alarm cue is directly correlated with loss of olfactory function at copper exposures ranging from 2 to 20 jlg/L (Sandahl et a!. 2007). Copper's effect on chemical communication in aquat- ic systems has broad implications for the chemical ecology and conservation of aquatic species and communities. In the case of salmon, subtle but important impacts on sensory physiology and behavior at the juvenile life stage could increase predation mortality and thus increase losses from wild salmon populations, many of which remain at histqric lows in large river basins throughout the, western United States (Good et al. 2005). Conversely, improving water quality conditions (i.e., by reducing copper loading) could potentially improve juvenile survival and abundance, thereby enhancing ongoing efforts to recover depressed stocks. However, the cascading effects of copper across biological scales, from salmon physiology and behavior to predator-prey interactions and survival, have not been empirically determined. Here we explored the influence of environmentally relevant copper exposures on juvenile coho salmon (see Plate 1) predator avoidance and survival during encounters with coastal cutthroat trout (0. clarki clarki). Cutthroat trout are visual foragers (Henderson and Northeote 1985, Mazur and Beauchamp 2003) that commonly prey on juvenile salmon in stream, lake, and nearshore marine habitats (Nowak et a!. 2004, Duffy and Beauchamp 2008). We used a range of sublethal. copper exposures (5--20 jlgjL) and a duration (3 h) previously shown to impair both peripheral olfaction and aianll behavior in juvenile coho (Sandahl et a1. 2007). In a subset of trials, predators were also exposed to dissolved copper (10 jlgjL for 3 h). METHODS AND MATERIALS Animals JUlicnile coho.- 1. Behavior experimenls.-fn 2007, wild juvenile coho salmon were collected as needed by seining a side channel of Big Beef Creek at the University of Washington's Big Beef Creek Research Station (Sea- beck, Washington, USA). Coho were maintained on well water (Table 1) in indoor raceways under natural light regime and fed pellets daily (1-2 mm extruded; Silver Cup Fish Feed, Murray, Utah, USA). Coho grew slightly throughout the experimental period, from April-May (39-49 mm total length [TLJ, .j' = 42.8, SO = 3.3, n = 13) to June-July (36-60 mm TL, -<=48.7, SO = 5.6, n = 79). 2. Predation experiments.-In 2008, juvenile coho were produced from eggs fertilized at the Big Beef Creek Research Station. Hatchlings were maintained outdoors in I_m 3 net pens suspended in 'a 5 111 diameter circular tank continuously supplied with well water. One net pen of juveniles (approximately (000 fish) provided the experimental prey. Coho were fed pellcts daily. Coho grew slightly throughout the experimcntal period; random samples in April-May were 30-40 mm TL (.i = 36.2, SO = 2.5, 11= 24) and in June .. ·July were 35-46 mm TL (X = 41.3, SO = 2.7, n = 64). During predation trials, there was a significantly higher attack rate on the larger coho in June-J uly compared to those used in April-May (129=-2.136, P=0.041), likely related to the slightly larger size and therefore visibility of eoho in the second set of predation trials. Other predator prey metrics were not affected (P = 0.084-0.625). Cutthroat trout.- 1. Behlll'ior experiments (response to ups/ream preda- tor ).-During April 2007, wild cutthroat trout (sizes 178-245 mm TL, .i = 205, SO = 18, n = 16) for use as predators were obtained from Big Beef Creek in smolt traps at a weir operated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Predators were maintained outdoors in flow-through circular holding tanks supplied with well water. On experimental days, predators were fed one juvenile coho each. Other days, predators were fcd one fish each every other day. Predators were divided 1462 • JENIFER K. McINTYRE ET AL. • Ecological Applicalions Vol. 22 No.5 TAHLE 1. Conventional water chemistry characteristics, including total organic carbon (TOe), for source (well) water at the Big Beef Creek Research Station (Seabeck, Washington, USA). Parameter Units D.L. N Mean SE pH II 7.5 0.3 Alkalinity mgJL CaC03 1.0 II 46.7 0.7 Hardness mgiL CaCO, 1.0 II 56.0 0.0 Bicarbonate mg/L 1.0 II 46.7 0.7 Calcium mg/L 0.05 11 18.00 0.00 Potassium mg/L 0.10 II 0.50 0 Magnesium mg/L 0.05 II 2.67 0.03 Sodium mg/L 0.05 II 11.00 0.00 Chloride mg/L 1.0 11 15.7 0.3 Sulfate mg/L 1.0 II 2.0 0 TOC mg/L 0.1 7 0.07t 0.01 o Cu ~g/L 0.04 6 0.16 0.04 5 eu Ilg/L 0.04 2 4.54 0.07 10Cu ~g/L 0.04 6 9.21 0.13 10 Cu+: ~g/L 0.04 8 8.94 0.54 10 CUS ~giL 0.04 4 8.06 0.34 20 Cu ~giL 0.04 2 17.25 0.55 Notes: Also shown afC measured copper concentrations for the different exposures; copper measurements are for exposure aquaria unless otherwise noted. D.L. stands for instrument detection limit. t An eighth sample had anomalously high TOe (0.68 mg!L) and was excluded t Experimental arenas for predator +.prey trials . . § Predator holding tanks for predator + prey trials. randomly into four groups of four. On experimental days, predators within a group were randomly assigned to one of four arenas. Groups were rotated such that each predator was exposed to each treatment. 2. Predation experimellts.~During April 2008, wild cutthroat trout for use as predators (sizes 150-215 mm TL, x = 183, SD:; 18, 11 = 32) were again obtained from Big Beef Creek and divided into three groups: groups 1 and 2 contained 8 predators each and were used in predation trials, while group 3, containing 16 predators, was held in reserve. Between the first set of predation trials (15-30 May) and the second set (25 June-3 July), predators in groups I and 2 were replaced with inexperienced fish from group 3. On experimental days, predators in Group 1 and Group 2 were fed one juvenile coho each during the predation trial. On other days, fish in all three groups were fed one fish each, every other day. For six days prior to collecting experimental data, predators were trained daily by simulating the experi- mental sequence. Trout were acclimated in the tank behind the divider for I h. The divider was then lifted, allowing the predators to locate, attack, and consume up to two prey fish. Experimental arenas and alarm cue delivery Behavior experiments with upstream predator.-Out- door raceways (0.84 m width) were divided into segments (1.2 m long) with steel mesh barriers to create one experimental arena per raceway. A PVC sheet (1/16 inch [-0.16 cm]; Calsak Plastics, Kent, Washington, USA) subdivided by gridlines (5 cm") was placed at the bottom of each arena. Well water flowed into the raceway (2 Lis) from an underwater pipe upstream of the arena. A standpipe downstream of the arena maintained a watcr depth of 25 em. Dividers partitioned each arena into an upstream predator-containing compartment (46 X 84 cm) and an adjacent downstream compartment containing prey (76 X 84 cm). Dividers were frames (13 cm wide) constructed from PVC sheets (1/16 inch) and covered with window screen. Well water or skin extract was delivered to the prey compartment through evenly spaced holes in a tube (Tygon tubing, 1/4 inch outer diameter [-0.63 em]) crossing the upstream divider, approximately 5 cm below the surface. Even dispersion was confirmed visually by dye tests. A three-way valve connected to a syringe allowed for injection of water or water plus alarm odor from outside the visual field of the fish. Predation experimellts.~Circular fiberglass tanks '·(bottom diameter = 130 cm, height = 90 em) were used as experimental arenas. Gridlines were drawn at 5·cm intervals on the tank bottom to track fish location via video. An external standpipe maintained water· depth (30 cm, 400 L). A sheet of PVC (90 X 60 em) suspended vertically was used to divide cutthroat trout predators into a small sub·area (34 L) of the arena during acclimation. Juvenile coho prey were introduced into the arena and allowed to acclimate within a clear acrylic cylinder (25 em inner diameter, 38 em tall; U.S. Plastic Corp, Lima, Ohio, USA). The acclimation chamb~r was placed in one of the quadrants opposite the predator divider, within 15 cm from the tank edge. Predator dividers and acclimation chambers were attached by rope to overhead pulleys so they could be gently raised without the observer coming into view of the fish. Skin extract was introduced to the prey acclimation chamber via Tygon® tubing just below the water surface connected to a three-way valve fitted with two syringes outside the tank. The skin extract solution was immedi- ately flushed from the line with well water (60 mL). July 2012 . .COPPER ON PREDA nON OF JUVENILE C. 1463 Skin extract alarm clie An alarm cue-containing skin extract from juvenile coho was prepared as previously described (Sandahl et aJ. 2007). Beilm'ior experiments with upstream predator.-In each flow-through arena, 1 mL of concentrated skin extract (160 em' juvenile coho skin/L) was diluted in 50 mL of well water to a final concentration of 2 cm'/L This solution was introduccq over 60 s into an average flow of 2 Lis for an exposure of approximately I X 10-3 cm2'L -l·S-I. Pilot trials confirmed a behavioral reaction to the alarm cue at this diluted concentration (x activity reduction = 51 %, SD = 15%, II = 8). Predation experimcnts.-Initial range-finding tests indicated that 2 X 10-5 cm 2 of homogenized skin extract per liter of water was the minimum concentration to evoke an alann response (.f activity reduction = 77%, SO = 24%, n = 4). This agrees closely with previously published thresholds for conspecific skin extract evoking predator avoidance behavior in salmonids (1.85 X 10-5 cm2 /L in o. mykiss [Mirza and Chivers 2003}; 2 X 10-5 cm 2 /L in o. kisulch [Sandahl et aJ. 2007]). In static arenas, diluted skin extract (I cm2 /L) was prepared daily from a frozen aliquot of. concentrated skin extract (22 cm2/L). At the end of the I5-min prey acclimation. 257 l1L of diluted skin extract in 50 mL of well water was injected into the prey acclimation chamber (12.9 L) for a final skin concentration of 2 X 10-5 cm 2/L. Dye tests indicated that injected water did not diffuse from the acclimation chamber prior to the chamber being lifted from the experimental arena. Copper exposures Juvenile coho were exposed to dissolved copper prior to experimental trials. Exposures took place in 30-L glass aquaria wrapped in black plastic and supplied with an airstone. Aquaria were fined with 15 L of well water (controls) or well watcr containing varying copper concentrations (conventional water quality parameters shown in Table I). Copper was added to the aquaria just prior to the onset of the 3-h exposures. Copper chloride stock solution (0.15 g CulL) was diluted to achieve nominal concentrations of 0,5, ]0, or 20 lJ.g/L. Experimental sequence Behavior experiments with upstream predator.-Indi- vidual predators were placed in the predator compart- ment of each arena, upstream of the prey compartment, the evening before a trial and allowed to acclimate (> 13 h). The following morning, juvenile coho (I preyl predator) were exposed to either well water or well water containing 20 ~lg/L copper for 3 h. They were then transferred to the prey compartment of the experimental arena (one prey per arena) and allowed to acclimate for 30 min prior to the injection of stimulus solutions (water or water plus skin extract). Predation experi1llents.---·-The· timclinc for predation trials is delineated in Table 2. For trials in which only TABLE 2. Predation trial timelinc. Timclinc Duration Event -3 h 15min 3h prey exposure -I h 0 min I h predator acclimation -15min 15 min prey acclimation o min 10 s skin extract injected 30 s lOs prey released 50 s 5 s predators released juvenile coho prey were exposed to copper, predators (two per arena) were acclimated behind the divider during the last hour of the 3-h prey exposure interval. Exposed prey were then transferred to the acrylic chamber (two fish per arena) for 15 min, an interval brief enough to minimize olCactory recovery in elean water and yet long enough to produce reliably robust control activity (swimming speed ...... 5 cm/s). Filming began at the time of prey transfer. Following prey acclimation, skin extract was administered and given 30 s to disperse (verified with dye tests) before the chamber was gently lifted and removed from the experimental arena. Thereafter. predators were released from their enclosure. Two consecutive sets of trials using a different group of predators were run each day, and the arenas were drained and filled between sets. For trials in which both prey and predators were exposed to copper, both exposures were for 3 h. including acclimation time in the experimental arena. Predators were exposed to copper for 2 h in their holding tanks followed by a I-h exposure in the experimental arena. Prey were exposed to copper in the exposure aquarium for 2.75 h. This was followed by 15 min in the acclimation chamber of the experimental arena. Water. chemistry (mal.rses Conventional water quality parameters and total organic carbon (TOe) were measured in water samples collected in 2008 between 20 May and 3 July. This interval spans most of the experimental period (16 May- 3 July). Concurrently, dissolved copper (OCu) concen- trations were measured in 28 samples that were representative of the different copper exposures. For conventional parameters. samples were stored at 4°C in polyethylene bottles until analysis by standard methods at an EPA-certified laboratory (AmTest Laboratories; Redmond, Washington, USA). Samples for TOC were stored in glass vials a1 -20D e until analysis by combustion catalytic oxidation/NlDR method with a Shimadzu TOC-VCSH (University of Washington, Oceanography Technical Services, Seattle, Washington, USA). Samples for dissolved copper were stored at 4°C for up to 72 h prior to analysis by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Frontier Global Sciences, Seattle, Washington, USA). The well water at BBC used in all experiments had low ion and organic carbon content (Table 1), which is similar to Pacific Northwest streams west of the 1464 • JENIFER K. MciNTYRE ET AL. • Ecological Applications Vol. 22 1\'0.5 Cascades (e.g .• Fig. 2 in McIntyre et al. 2008). The background copper concentration was Vel)' low (mean of 0.16 ~g/L) and samples from copper exposures were 81-91 % of nominal concentrations. Video dalO acquisition The four experimental arenas were sheltered outdoors beneath a wooden scaffolding to which cameras and pulleys were attached. The stand was covered by blue tarps to prevent direct lighting. Prey acclimation and predation trials were filmed with digital video cameras (SONY Exwave HAD SSC-M383) fitted with auto-iris lenses (2M-2812A, FI.4 DC Autolris. 1/3" varifocal28- 12 mm, angle of view 95.6-22.1 degrees; Sony, Tokyo, Japan) mounted over each arena. Video footage for the four concurrent trials were recorded on a digital video recorder (Pro 8-CH DVR; SecurityCameraWorld.com, Cooper City, Florida, USA) at 30 frames per second (FPS). Data analysis Coho acti\'ity.- 1. Behavior experiments.-Following the 30-min ac- climation, the activity of juvenile coho was quantified for 5 min by measuring swimming speed, approximated by the sum of vertical and horizontal line crossings on the 5_cm 2 grid of the prey compartment. 2. Predation cxperiments.-We quantified prey activ- ity after coho were released from the acclimation chamber, during the 10 s prior to releasing the predators. Average swimming speed across the 10-s period was determined by tracking each prey fish in two- dimensional space with image analysis software. Using Quicktime· Pro (version 7.6; Apple, Cupertino, Califor- nia, USA), video was exported as an image sequence at I frame per second. In Image J, the position (x, y) of each prey fish was tracked between images, converting changes in position into swimming speed (cm/s) by standardizing the pixels to the bottom tank dimensions (software available online).4 We assumed that movement between frames was linear. For most prey pairs (69/76), the two fish were equally active, and we averaged the swimming speed of the two prey each second. In the remaining 10% of cases, one prey was significantly more active (Kolmogorov-Smir- nov distribution test, P < 0.05), and the more active prey was attacked first in seven of the eight cases. For these pairings, we used only the activity record for the more active prey in calculating prey activity. Predation trial metrics.-Predator-prcy interactions were analyzed from video recordings of each predation trial. Only attacks and captures of the first prey of the prey pair were quantified. Metrics were time to first attack (SA), time to capture (SC), time between first attack and capture (oC -oA), number of attacks (A), 4 http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/ and attack frequency (attacks per second during attack period; A/[SC -SA]). For each copper concentration and predator exposure combination, 16 predation trials were conducted for a total of 112 data trials. Not all metries could be quantified for all trials. Statistical analyses Coho prey activity.-For the experiments in 2007, a two-factor ANOVA was used to explore whether copper exposure (0 vs. 20 ~g/L) affected the behavioral response (activity level) to predation risk (no risk, upstream predator, upstream predator plus skin extract). Simple main effects analysis used a Bonferrolli adjustment for multiple comparisons. For 2008, single-factor ANOVA· was used to test the effect of the various copper treatments on prey activity in the combined presence of predators and skin extract. Dunnett's post-hoc was used to compare activity in the copper treatments to the control treatment. Statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS 16.0 for Macintosh (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). Predator-prey ;II1eractiolls.-Data for predator-prey interactions were not normally distributed and were positively skewed, being bounded by zero. Log-transfor- mation resulted in normally distributed SA, SC, and A, which were analyzed by ANOVA followed by Dunnett's post-hoc for comparing copper treatments to controls. Log-transformation did not normalizc SC -SA and attack frequency. Differences in central tendency of SC- 3A and attack frequency were tested by Kruskal-\Vallis nonparamctric multiple comparison. For the separate sct of predation trials in which predators were also exposed to copper, Tukey's post-hoc test was used following the ANOVA to compare among the three treatments (controls, prey exposed to 10 ~gjL copper, predator + prey exposed to 10 Ilg/L copper). The relationship between capture success probability (capture on first attack) and copper treatment was· tested by linear regression of the natural log of the odds ratio for capture succcss weighted by sample size. This method transforms curvilinear data in a probability distribution to a linear function. of the independent variable. We transformed capture success probability at each copper concentration to the lo~ odds ratio (OR) as follows: ( CSR ) 10g,(OR) = In I _ CSR (1) where CSR is the capture success ratio across trials within each copper concentration. Survil'al curves.-Time to capture of the first prey fish for each trial was used to assess differences in the distribution of survival times (OC) among treatments. Within each treatment, survival time was ranked across trials and each trial was assigned a decreasing propor- tion of the total survival of the firs.t prey as per Vilhunen (2006). For cxalT!plc, the first prey captured among control trials had a survival time of 6 seconds. Up to 6 s, July 2012 .COPPER ON PREDATION OF JUVENILE C. 1465 7 en (5) E 6 .8- "0 5 " (10) " 0. 4 '" 0> c E 3 E .~ 2 '" >. • Unexposed ~ a. o 20 ~g CulL (14) 0 • No Upstream Upstream predator predator predator + alarm substance FIG. L Activity levels for control (unexposed) and coppcr- exposed (20 }lg CulL for 3 h) juvenile coho downstream from one of three levels of predation risk; a compartment with a predator absent, a cutthroat trout predator present, and predator prc:'.cnt plus the addition of juvenile coho skil1l!xtract. Swimming speed was recorded over 5 min at the end of the 30- min prey acclimation period. Significant diITercnces (P < 0.05) from unexposed control arc marked with an asterisk. Numbers by each symbol are the sample sizes. Error bars indicate ±SE. prey survival was 100%. At 6 S, survival across control trials dropped to 15/16, or·93.75%. For each treatment, the proportion surviving was analyzed as a function of survival time by non-linear regression using the following sigmoid equation: I . PiT) = I + e'IT -ST50) (2) where k was the slope of the linear portion of the curve, indicating how quickly survival declined with time, T was time in log\O(number of seconds), and ST50 was the midpoint of the curve, the tog lO survival time for 50% of trials~analogous to the median survival time. For significantly differcnt distributions, a 1 test assessed differences in the slope and midpoint among treatments. The benefit of using this method over simply comparing the central tendency of survival time among treatments was that we could compare not only the median survival time, but also the shape of the relationship between survival and time. To calculate survival probabilities for copper treat- men~s relative to the control treatment, we solved Eq. 2 for survival time, T, using the control slope' (k) and midpoint (STSO) from Table 4: T = k-1 X In (~-I) + ST50. (3) For given control survival probabilities (0.95 and 0.5), we used Eq. 3 to calculate the associated prey survival ,time. These times were then used in Eg. 2 with the respective slopes and midpoints for various copper exposures to estimate the related survival probability at that timc for coho in each copper exposure. RESULTS Copper-exposed coho prey are behaviorally unrespon- sire to ala/,111 clIes.-We found a significant interaction between copper exposure and upstream predator cues with respect to their effect on coho activity (Fl,ss = 6.083, P = 0.054; Fig. I). In the absence of proximal predator cues, i.e .. no upstream predator or conspecific skin extract, coho swam at an average speed of 5.2 cm/s (control condition; Fig. 1). A significant alann response (tendency toward motionlessness) was elicited by the prcsencc of a predator (2.1 cm/s; F l ,5S = 4.813, P = 0.032) and a predator together with an upstream introduction of skin extract (1.2 em!s; F ,.ss = 8.738, P = 0.005). When the prey was exposed to copper, upstream predator cues had no effect on activity (combined 3.9 cm/s; ri.55 = 0.518, P = 0.599). Exposure to copper (20 ~g/L) alone did not significantly affect baseline swimming activity (predator absent; 4.3 cm/s, F"" = 0.734, P = 0.395). Based on previous work (Baldwin et al. 2003), juvenile coho would be expected to recover -20% of lost olfactory function during the 30 min acclimation interval in clean water used in these behavioral experiments. Nevertheless, copper-exposed fish were still unresponsive to chemical predator cues. Similar to flow-through trials, control coho in static trials showed a strong alarm response to skin extract, as indicated by a reduction in swimming speed to 1.0 cm/s (Fig. 2). The magnitUde of this alarm response decreased with increasing copper exposure. The average swimming speed of coho exposed to copper at 20 ~g CulL was 4.9 cm/s and comparable to the baseline swimming speed of unexposed control fish in the flow-through trials (5.2 cm/s; Fig. I). The loss of the alarm response was 7 en • E 6 • (11) .8-(15) "0 5 Q) • " a. '" 4 (10) 0> C E 3 E .~ 2 "' (12) >. ~ a. 0 0 5 10 15 20 Copper concentration (~g/L) FIG. 2. Alaml behavior in juvenile coho prey at the oulsel of predation trials. Predators were located within the trial arena behind an opaque divider. Prey swimming speed was recorded at the end of the IS-min prey acclimation, after the presentation of cOl1specific skin extract. An asterisk indicates that juvenile coho unexposed to copper (0 llgJL) were significantly less active (i.e., were alarmed) relative to copper-exposed coho at all copper exposure concentrations (P < 0.05). Error bars indicate ::tSE. 1466 • JENIFER K. McINTYRE ET AL. • Ecological Applications Vol. 22 NO.5 TABLE 3. Median values (min, max) for time to first attack (SA), time to first capture (Be), time between SA and Be, number of attacks to oC (A), and frequency of attacks. [Cult (~g/L) OA (s) liC (s) May 0 29.4 (4.2. 218.4) 41.7 (6. 256.8) 5 8.4 (0, 102)' 13.2 (3, 175.8)t 10 6 (1.8, 97.2)t 9.3 (3, 422.4)' 20 4.5 (0.6, 426.6)' 9.6 (1.2, 426.6)' June 0 22.2 (4.2, 156) 23.4 (5.4, 159) 10 3 (0, 114)' 6.9 (0.6, 124.8)' 10# 5.4 (1.2. 27)' 9 (1.2, 34.8)' , P < 0.05; t p < 0.1. t Copper exposures for 3 h prior to predation trial. § A/(IlC -OA). IlC -OA (s) A Attack frequency (s I) § 3.3 (0, 106.2) 2 (I, 5) 0.75 (0.029. 16.67)11 3 (0. 73.8) 3 (I. 7) 1.11 (0.054. 16.67) 2.7 (0, 422.47) 2 (1, 6) 1.25 (0.007, 16.67) 3 (0, 6) 3 (I, 6) 1.15 (0.667, 16.67) 1.8 (0, 7.2) 3 (1, 6) 1.67 (0.555, 16.67) 3 (0. 12) 3 (I, 6) 1.5 (0.222, 16.67) 2.1 (0, 28.8) 3 (1, 10) 1.57 (0.347. 16.67) ,; To calculate attack frequency for-SC -SA = 0, number of anacks was divided by 0.06 s. # Predators,also exposed to copper. significant among copper-exposed coho relative to controls (F, .... = 14.27. P < 0.001; Dunnett's post hoc test, P S 0.00 I). Copper-exposed coho are more vulnerahle 10 preda- tion.-Prior copper exposure significantly affected time to first attack (ANOV A, F,." = 3.550, P = 0.020) and time to first capture (F'.58 = 4.33, P = 0.008) of juvenile coho by predators (Table 3). Time to attack (SA) and time to capture (SC) were reduced for all copper treatments compared to controls (Dunnett's post hoc test (0 vs. 5,10, 20 ~g/L): PM =0.031,0.069,0.014; P,e = 0.062,0.020.0.004). Other predator-prey interactions were unaffected by copper exposure (Table 3), including time between first attack and capture (Kruskall-Wallis xl,6J =2.43, P=0.488). number of attacks (F'.58 =0.624, P = 0.602), and attack frequency (xl" = 6.00, P = 0.111). . ' Time to attack and time to capture were positively correlated hecause time to capture includes time to first attack (SC = 8A + [SC -SA]). The correlation between time to attack and· time to capture was very strong (rs = 0.959, n = 63, P < 0.001). When log-transformed to allow calculation of a coefficient of determination, time to attack explained nearly all the variation in time to capture (,2 = 0.912). Capture-attack interval (SC -SA) was not significantly different among treatments (x~ 63 = 2.43, P = 0.488, median = 3 s), and was not correiated with SA (rs = 0.094, n = 63, P ~ 0.470), suggesting that the primary componenl of the predation sequence affected by copper was prey detection leading to attack (M). Although the number of attacks to capture (A) was not different among treatments (Table 3), the capture success rate (probability of capturing prey on the first attack) increased with copper concentration (Fig. 3). Capture success rate was significantly correlated with increasing copper exposure concentration (FI .3 = 60.060, P =0.016, ,2 = 0.968) following the equation 10g,(OR) = 0.062[Cu] -2.039, where [Cu] is dissolved copper concentration in ~lg/L. Standard error for the slope was 0.008 and was 0.092 for the intercept. Exposing predators TO copper does not improl'f! the evasion success of prey.-In a separate set of predation tIials, we detennined the effect of co-exposing predators and prey to coppcr at 10 ~g/L (Table 3). Similar to the first set of predation trials, copper exposure affected time to attack (F'.4' = 8.639. P = 0.001) and time to capturc (F2•42 = 6.368, P= 0.004). However, these metries were not significantly different from experiments in which prey alone were exposed (Tukey's post hoc, SA, P = 0.340; SC, P = 0.715). Number of attacks (F2.4' = 1.429. P = 0.251), time between first attack and capture (xl.45 = 0.732. P = 0.693), and attack frequency (xl .. , = 0.318, P = 0.853) were not affected by copper exposure (prey exposed and predators plus prey exposed were similar to comTOIs). In addition, exposing predators to copper did not change the likelihood of capturing prey on the first attack (25% for exposed prey only \'5, 31 % for co-exposed predators and prey; xl = 0.643, P = 0.423). Copper exposure reduces prey survival.-Survival curves for each treatment were constructed from the 0.4,-------------------, ~ 0.3 en en '" () U :J 0.2 '" ~ :J 15, '" 0.1 U r' ~ 0.96B. P ~ 0.Q16 0.0 0 5 19 15 20 Copper concentration (flg/L) F]G. 3. Proportion of trials ror which prey were captured 011 the tlrsl attack (capture success rale). Dashed lines are 95% confidence bands for the logistic regression. Capture success rate is described by the equation i/(l + /'), where F = O.062[Cu] -2.039 (see Resulls for associated statistics). July 2012 ~ .~ ::> <J) ;>, • COPPER ON PREDATION OF JUVENILE cA 1.00 ")IEl;;:;:::==:::::---,-----,...-;;::-------, 40 ~ . 30 20 0.75 10 o L..,-.,--.,.,.---,.,--,:-o 5 10 15 20 Copper (~g/L) ~ a. 0.50+--------.l&I~--4 .... --------_I "iii c:: o t o a. e 0.. 0.25 0.00 • Control 6. 5 ~g CulL o 10 ,L9 CulL 1_v=-:20~~9~C:u/~L~ __ ~--~~~~~~::;;~==~ 10 100 tOoo Survival time (8) 1467 FIG. 4. Survival curves for control and copper-exposed coho in predation trials. Each point represents one predation trial. and survival times are based on the I1rst prey fish consumed. The inset shows the midpoinLS of each curve, representing median survival time (ST50) for each treatment as a function of copper exposure. time to first capture among trials (Figs. 4 and 5). Slopes, midpoints, and coefficil!nts of determination for these curves are presented in Tahle 4. Survival curves for copper treatments (Fig. 4) were significantly different from the control curve (F test, all p < 0.00 I). This was due to differences in midpoint (I test, all P < 0.001). as slope between survival and time for each copper treatment was similar to the slope of the control curve (t test, all P > 0.480). Among copper treatments, 5 Ilg/L and 10 Ilg/L produced similar survival curves (F2•27 = 2.222, P = 0.128). with similar slopes (127, P = 0.314) and midpoints (I", P = 0.274), 1.ool:':::-=::;::;;:::--------------, ~ .~ ::> U) ~ a. "iii c:: o t &. e 0.75 0.50 c.. 0.25 0.00 30 ~ 20 a> 0 Lt') f-lO & rJ) ° 0 5 10 15 20 Copper (llg/L) • Control • 10 ~9 CulL 1~[]~10~~9~C:WL~(~p~re:y~+~p~re~da:t~or~)--~~~~~~::==----~ 10 100 1000 Survival time (5) FIG. 5. Survival curves for predation trials in which prey alone or predators and prey were both exposed to copper (10 Ilg/L). Each point represents one trial. and survival times are base-d on the first prey tish consumed. Insets show the midpoints of each curve, representing median survival time (ST50) for each treatment as a f)Jnction of copper exposure. The triangle symbol in the inset represents the ST50 for trials in which both predator and prey were exposed to copper. 1468 • JENIFER K. MciNTYRE ET AL. • Ecological Applications Vol. 22 No.5 TABLE 4. Sigmoid regression parameters for the survival curves. [CuI (~g/L) " ST50t May 0 0.984 1.557 5 0.988 1.085 JO 0.965 1.052 20 0.987 0.898 June 0 0.983 1.338 10 0.985 0.774 IO§ 0.985 0.935 Note: All P < 0.001. SE K; 0.016 3.219 0.014 3.36 0.026 3.042 0.014 3.333 0.016 3.493 0.014 3.659 0.012 4.768 SE 0.186 0.166 0.262 0.17 0.213 0.203 0.302 N 16 15 16 16 15 16 14 t Log of time (0 50% survival across trials, midpoint of curve, measured in seconds. ! Slope of the sigmoid regression curve. § Predators and prey both exposed to copper. whereas these curves had significantly different mid~ points (Tahle 4) than the curve for 20 ~g/L (both P <0.004). For the predation trials in which both predators and prey were exposed (Fig. 4), survival curves for copper treatments (10 ~g/L) were again different from the control curve (Ftest, both P < 0.001). Prey alone exposed to 10 Ilg/L resulted in a survival curve that had a similar slope (127, P = 0.577), but different midpoint (127, P < 0.001) than the control curve. Exposing predators and coho to 10 ~g/L affected both the slope (I". P = 0.002) and the midpoint (125, P < 0.001) of the survival curve compared to the conlrol curve. The predator + prey copper curve also had a different slope (/26, P = 0.005) and midpoint (/26, P < 0.001) compared to the prey-only copper exposures. Therefore, exposing predators to copper resulted in a subtle change in the shape of the survival curve, a1though it was not strong enough to alter predator-prey metrics (see Exposing predators 10 copper does nol improl'e the evasion success of prey). We calculated survival probabilities for copper exposures relative to controls using Eqs. I and 2. At 4.4 s, 95% of control coho were alive. Relative survival probabilities for copper·exposed coho were 82% for 5 ~g/L, 78% for 10 ~g/L. and 70% for 20 ~lg/L. The median survival time for controls was 36.1 s (50% survival; Table 4). Corresponding survival probabilities for copper exposures were 17%, 18%, and 10% for 5 ~gl L, IO ~g/L, and 20 ~g/L treatments, respectively. DISCUSSION We have evaluated the effects of copper exposure on juvenile coho predator avoidance behaviors and the related consequences for coho survival during encoun- ters with predatory wild cutthroat trout. We find that relatively brief (3 h) exposures to copper at 5-20 ~g/L eliminated the behavioral alarm response in coho prey, . leading in turn to increased detection, reduced evasion, and reduced survival during prcdation trials. The magnitude of the coho alaml response was greatest when the presence of an upstream predator was paired with skin extract, consistenl with previous studies (e.g., Lautala and Hirvonen 2008). Our results showing a copper-induced loss of antipredator behavior reinforces and extends previous observations for juvenile coho. Sandahl et al. (2007) found that hatchery· raised coho become motionless (freeze) following presentation of a con specific skin extract; and that this alarm response is reduced or abolished by copper exposure (3h; 2-20 ~g/L). We have extended this behavioral toxicity to wild coho, and shown that copper also renders coho unresponsive lo possibly distinct chemical cues emanating from a proxi- mal upstream predator. This is consistent with copper's broad neurotoxicity across non-overlapping olfactory receptor neuron populations in the salmon olfactory epithelium (Baldwin et al. 2003). Copper·exposed prey were easier for predators to identify, attack, and capture. This was due primarily to higher activity than alarmed controls, leading to a more rapid detection by cutthroat trout. For juvenile salmon, activity critically determines the likelihood of detection by visually guided predators such as larger salmonids, piscivorous birds, and ri\ier otters. For example, in predation trials with Mergansers, attacks on active juvenile coho were 15 times more frequent than attacks on inactive coho (Martel and Dill 1995). In the current study, copper also negatively influenced evasion of a predator once an attack was initiated, i.e., it became increasingly likely that prey would be captured on the first attack at higher copper exposure concentrations. Evasion success depends in part on whether the prey fish is aware of proximal danger (Lima and Dill 1990). In the current study the threat awareness of unexposed controls was heightened via the introduction of conspe- cific skin extract prior to the onset of the trial. By comparison, copper-exposed coho were unresponsive to the chemical alarm cue, thus unaware of the impending threat, and less prepared to evade once an attack sequence was initiated. Copper toxicity to the coho lateral line mcchanoscn· sory system may have contributed to the observed reduction in evasion success. As with olfactory receptor neurons, copper is toxic to lateral line neurons that are directly exposed to contaminated waters (Linbo et al. July 2012 • COPPER ON PREDATION OF JUVENILE c.& 1469 PLAH I. Ju venile coho salmon are sensitive to olfactory alarm cues . Phot o credit: Morgan Bond . 2006). The lateral line system in salmon and other fi sh responds to water displaced by a n approaching predato r and triggers a well-studied seq uence or evasive behaviors (the C-type startle reflex: reviewed by Bleckmann 1993). Conversely, predators can capture prey without a functioning lateral line system. For predatory bass (Microplerus salm o ides) and muskellunge (Esox masqu;- lIongy), prey capture success rate was unaffccted by cobalt exposures at concentrations toxic to the lateral line (New 2002). Despite similar prey capture success, so me aspects of the attack sequence were altered in cobalt-exposed predators relative to controls, including shorter distan ce to strike (both predators) and mean angular approach (muskellunge). We found a subtle shift in the midpoint and slope or the prey survival curve when predators wcre co-exposed to copper, poss ibly due to copper neurotoxic effects on the lateral line or cutthroat trout predators. Additional beha\~oral studies with a focus on lateral line function are warranted, particularly for predator-prey encounters under low visibility conditions . Prey may make co mpen sa tory behavioral changes to improve their likeli hood of s urviving an attack (Lima and Dill 1990 , Lind and Cresswell 2005); however , we saw no evidence or thi s among copper-exposed coho. Also, co-exposing predators and prey to copper did not eliminate the reduced su rvival time of prey rel ative to exposing prey alone. This indicates that sublethal copper toxicity will have a disproporLionale impact on prey in predator-prey dynamics, irrespective of whether the visually guided predators occupy the same contaminated surface waters (e.g., cutthroat trout and other piscivo - rous fish) or attack rrom the air above (e .g., Kingfishers and other birds). The arena used for the predation trial s lacked Sub Slr3 te , making it easier for cutthroat lroul to detect and successrully capture alarmed coho relative to an encounter under natural conditions. Substrate complex- ity improves juvenile coho crypsis (Donnelly and Dill 19 84) and provides reruge. Turbidity in streams can further constrain visual detection (Mazur and Beau- champ 2003). Thus, our observed differences in preda- ti o n vulnerability between copper-exposed and unexposed prey would likely be magnified in natural stream habitats where s urvival rale s for alarmed (predator aware) coho are higher . 1470 • JENIFER K. McINTYRE ET AL. • Ecological Applications Vol. 22 No.5 Our findings likely extend to other fish species. For example, Baldwin et al. (2011) recently showed that the olfactory toxicity of copper is comparable in coho and steelhead, and also comparable among fish raised in hatchery and natural environments. Numerous other studies have demonstrated the olfactory-mediated ncu- robehavioral toxicity of copper for alarm behavior (reviewed by Tierney et al. 2010) in both controlled laboratory settings (e.g., Beyers and Farmer 2001. Jaensson and Olsen 2010) and in situ in copper- contaminated habitats (McPherson et al. 2004, Mirza et al. 2009). Copper impacts on chemosensory function also extends to other taxa; for example, disruption of the kairomone-mediated morphological predation defense of zooplankton (Daphnia pulex) and altered olfactory- based feeding behaviors of leeches (Nephe/opsis ohscura; Pyle and Mirza 2007) have similar toxicity thresholds (-5 flg/L). The toxic effects of copper have been remarkably consistent in coho salmon across biological scales, from the functional responsiveness of receptor neurons in the olfactory epithelium (Baldwin et al. 2003, Sandahl et al. 2004,2007, Mclntyrc ct al. 2008, Baldwin ct al. 2011) to the olfactory-mediated behavior of individual animals (Sandahl et al. 2007; this study) to coho survival in predator-prey interactions (this study). Across these studies. the thresholds for neurobchavioral toxicity have been in thc range of 2-5 pg/L (although this will shift upward in waters with relatively high dissolvcd organic carbon contcnt: Mclntyre et al. 2008). Notably, this is very elose to the toxicity threshold reported for rainbow trout olfaction more than 35 years ago (7 J.lg/L: Hara et al. 1976). Olfactory disruption as measured at the olfactory epithelium is therefore a reliable proxy for behavioral impairment and reduced survival. In conclusion, our findings are an example of how chemical habitat degradation in the form of water pollution can have nuanced but important impacts on the behavioral ecology of salmon. The effects of copper on coho survival are context-dependent and likely to go unnoticed in conventional field surveys of juvenile salmon abundance, habitat use patterns, and physical habitat quality. New biological indicators of copper toxicity, including diagnostic changes in gene expression within the salmon olfactory epithelium (e.g., Tilton et al. 2008), may eventually reveal the extent of sensory isolation in wild salmon under natural exposure regimes. In the interim, copper control strategies will likely improve juvenile salmon survival and minimize the disruption of a range of chemosensory-dependent behaviors. This includes, for example, legislation recent- ly enacted in Washington State (SB6557) and California (SB346) to phase out the use of copper and other metals in motor vehicle brake pads. ACKNOWI.EDGMENTS The authors thank J. Martin Grassley. Chris Tatara, Barry Bercjikian, Davc Rose, Matt Gilman, Sar~h McCarthy, and Evan Malczyk for technical assistance during this project. Coho during 200~ were donated by E. McClelland and K. Naish (University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. Seattle, Washington, USA). This research was supported by the NOAA Coastal Storms Program and a grant to knifer McIntyre from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achievc Rcsults (STAR) program. Although the research described in the article has been funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's STAR program (grant FP9165630l), it has not been subjected to any EPA review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. LITERATURE CITED Baldwin, D. H.,.I. F. Sandahl,.J. S. Labenia, and N. L. Scholz. 2003. Sublethal effects of copper on coho salmon: Impacts on nonoveriapping receptor pathways in the peripheral olfactory nervous system. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22:2266-2274. Baldwin, D. H., C. P. Tatara. and N. L. Scholz. 2011. Copper- induced olfactory toxicity in salmon and steelhead: Extrap- olation across species and rearing environments. Aquatic Toxicology 101 :295-297. Bcrejikian, B. A., R . .T. F. Smith, E. P. Tezak, S. L. Schroder, and C. M. Knudsen. 1999. Chemical alarm signals and complex hatchery rearing habitats affect antipredator behav- ior and survival of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus (shawylS- chll) juveniles. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:830-83R. Beyers, D. W., ahd M. S. Farmer. 2001. Effects of copper on olfaction of Colonldo pikeminl1ow. Environmental Toxicol· ogy and Chemistry 20:907-912. Bleckmann, H. 1993. Role of the lateral line in fish behaviour. Pages 201-246 ill T. J. Pitcher. editor. Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. Brown, G. E .. and R. J. F. Smith. 1997. Conspecific skin extracts elicit antipredator responses in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus nlykiss). Canadiaf! 10urnal of Zoology 75:19t6-1922. Chiv~rs, D. P., R. S. Mirza, and J. G. Johnston. 2002. Learned recognition of heterospecific alann cues enhances survival during encounlers wilh predators. Behaviour 139:929-938. Chivers, D. P., and R. J. r. Smith. 1998. Chemical alann signalling in aquatic predator-prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecosciencc 5:338-352. Davis, A. P., M. Shokouhian, and S. B. Ni. 2001. Loading estimates of lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc in urban runoff from specific sources. Chemosphere 44:997-1009. Donnelly. W. A., and L. M. Dill. 1984. Evidence for crypsis in 'coho salmon (OncorhYllchus ki.'iutch (Walbaum)), parr- substrate color preference and achromatic reflectance. Journal of Fish Biology 25:183-195. Duffy, E. J., and D. A. Beauchamp. 2008. Seasonal patterns of predation on juvenile Pacific salmon by anadromous cutthroat trout in Puget Sound. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:165-18l. Ferrari, M. C. 0., B. D. Wisenden, and O. P. Chivers .. 2010. Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:69·8-·724. Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, and P. Adams. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhcad. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS·NWFSC-66. U.S. Depart- ment or Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., USA. Hansen, J. A .• J. O. Rose, R. A. Jenkins, K. G. Gerow, and H. L. Bergman. 1999. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawy(sc!Ja) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to copper: neurophysiological and histological effects on the olfactory system. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:1979-1991. July 2012 • COPPER ON PREDA nON OF JUVENILE cA 1471 Hara, T. J., Y. M. C. Law, and S. Macdonald. 1976. Effects of mercury and copper on olfactory response in rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. lournal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1568-1573. Henderson, M. A., and T. G. Northcotc. 1985. Visual prey detection and foraging in sympalric cutthroat trout (Salma clarki clarki) and dolly varden (Salvelinus molina), Canadian lournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:785-790. Jaensson, A., and K. H. Olsen. 2010. Effects of copper on olfactory·mediated endocrine responses and reproductive behaviour in mature male brown troLlt Salmo trrllta parr to conspccific females. Journal of Fish Biology 76:800-817. Julliard, A. K., D. Saucier. and L. Astic. 1996. Time-course of apoptosis in the olfactory epithelium of rainbow trout exposed to a low copper level. Tissue and Cell 28:367-377. Lautala. T., and H. Hirvonen. 2008. Antipredator behaviour of naive Arctic charr young in the presence of predator odours and conspecific alarm cues. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 17:78-85. Lima, S. L.. and L. M. Dill. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predatiol1·-a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:619-640. Linbo. T. L. C. M. St~hr, J. P. Incardona, and N. L. Scholz. 2006. Dissolved copper triggers cell death in the peripheral mechanosensory system of larval fish. Environmental Toxi- cology and Chemistry 25:597-603. Lind, J., and W. Cresswel1. 2005. Determining the fitness consequences of antipredatioll behavior. Behavioral Ecology . 16:945-956. Lurling. M .. and M. Scheffer. 2007. Info-disruption: pollution and the transfer of chemical information between organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22:374-379. Martel, G., and L. M. Dill. 1995. Influence of movement by coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisulch) parr on their detection by common mergansers (Magus merganser). Ethology 99:139-149. Mazur, M. M .. and D. A. Beauchamp. 2003. A comparison of visual prey detection among species of piscivorous salmon ids: effects of light and low turbidities. Environm~ntal Biology of Fishes 67:397-·405. McIntyre, J. K., D. H. Baldwin, J. P. Meador, and N. L. Scholz. 2008. Chemosensory deprivation in juvenile coho salmon exposcd to dissoh'cd copper under varying water chemistry conditions. Environmental Science and Technolo- gy 42:1352-1358. McPherson, T. D., R. S. Mirza, and O. G. Pyle. 2004. Responses of wild fishes to alarm chemicals in pristine and metal-contaminated lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:694-700. Mirza, R. S., and D. P. Chivers. 2001. Chemical alarm signals enhance survival of brook charr (Salvelinus faminalis) during encounters with predatory chain pickerel (Es()x niger). Ethology 107:989-1005. Mirza, R. S., and D. P. Chivers. 2003. Response of juvenile rainbow trout to varying concentrations of chemical alarnl cue: response thresholds and survival during encounters with predators. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:88-95. Mirza, R. S., W. W. Green. S. Connor, A. C. W. Weeks. C. M. Wood, and G. G. Pyle. 2009. Do you smell what I smell? Olfactory impainnent in wild yellow perch from metal- contaminated waters. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Sarety 72:67.7-683. New, J. G. 2002. Multimodal integration in the feeding behaviors of predatory teleost fishes. Brain Behavior and Evolution 59:177-189. Nowak, G. M., R. A. Tabor, E. J. Warner, K. L. Fresh. and T. P. Quinn. 2004. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat and diet of cutthroat trout in Lake Washington, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:624-635. Pyle. G. G .. and R. S.· Mirza. 2007. Copper-impaired chemosensory function and behavior in aquatic animals. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 13:492-505. Sandahl. 1. F., D. H. Baldwin, J. J. Jenkins, and N. L. Scholz. 2004. Odor-evoked field potentials as indicators of sublethal neurotoxicity in juvenile coho salmon (Ollcorhynchus ki.l'U1Ch) exposed to copper, chlorpyrifos, or esfenvalerate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:404-413. Sandahl, J. E, D. H. Baldwin. J. J. Jenkins, and N. L. Scholz. 2007. A sensory system at the interface between urban stormwatcr . runoIT and salmon survival. Environmental Science and Technology 41 :2998-3004. Saucier, D., and L. Astic. 1995. Morphofunctional alterations in the olfactory system of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and possible acclimation in response to long-lasting exposure to low copper levels. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A-Physiology 1/2:273-284. Saucier, D., L. Astic, P. Rioux, and F. Godinot. 1991. Histopathological changes in the olfactory organ of rainbow trout (OncorhY1lchus myk iss) induced by early chronic exposure to a sublethal copper concentration. Canadian Journal or Zoology 69:2239-2245. Scholz, N. L., N. K. Truelove, B. L. French, B. A. Bercjikian, T. P. Quinn, E. Casillas, and T. K. Collier. 2000. Diazinon disrupts anti predator and homing behaviors in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:1911-1918. Sutterlin, A. M. 1974. Pollutants and the chemical senses of aquatic animals-perspective and review. Chemical Senses 1:167-178. Tierney, K. B., D. H. Baldwin, T .. J. Hara, P. S. Ross, N. L. Scholz, and C. J. Kennedy. 2010. Olfactory toxicity in fishes. Aqu'atic Toxicology 96:2-<!6. Tilton, F., S. C. Tilton, T. ·K. Rammler, R. Beyer, F. Farin, P. L. Stapleton, and E. P. Gallagher. 200S. Transcriptional biomarkers and mechanisms of copper-induced olfactory injury in zebrafish. Environmental Science and Technology 42:9404-9411. Vilhunen, S. 2006. Repeated antipredator conditiOlling: a pathway to habituation or to better avoidance? Journal or Fish Biology 68:25-43. Webb. P. W. 1986. Locomotion and predator-prey relation- ships. Pages 24-41 ill M. E. Feder and G. V. Lauder. editors. Predator-prey relationships. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Wisendcn, B. D. 2000. Olfactory assessment of predation risk in the aquatic environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 355:1205-1208. OPEN 0 ACCESS Freely available '~PLOsone Landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban Streams Blake E. Feist", Eric R. Buhle', Paul Arnold', Jay W. Davis', Nathaniel L. Scholz' 1 Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries SelVice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington, United States of America, 2 Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington, United States of America ~'~b~ir~~r" -.. -""-._-,"" """',:-:-""-"0"-"'.' ", .._--'-,....: '-,"'-" •• _,-"."""-"" "-'I ~ ,t In the P~ci~c North'west ofth:e'Unit~d"Siate{'adi..lt coho salmo~I(OnCorhyhchus'k;sutch) returning,from the ocean t~ spawn ( . in'i.Jrb2m ,basin(olthe Puget'Sound region have been prematur~ly dyin~iat high ~ates (up to 90% of the total runs) for more , than"a,decade.:rl:le current weight of, evidence. indiCates tha~ coho deaths are caused by toxic chemical contaminants in land~based runoff, ~o' urban streams 'during ,the' fa!, spawning Iseason: Nbn~point source pollution in urban landscapes ' f 'typically originates from discrete' urban 'arid residential'land use activities. In"the present-study we conducted a series of I I' spatial anal~ses to,identify'correiations between,,Ian,d,use,and ,I,and coyer (roady-.:~ys, imperviou~"surfaces, fore~s, etc.) and h~ the magnitude of ,coho ,mortality, in six str~,ams with differe~t d,rainage basin characteristics. We found that spawner mortality wa's most closely"a'nd 'positiveIY'correJated'with"the relative-proportion of locaJ roads, impervious surfaces, and 'commerCial propertY within'a'basin.'These a~d,othe,r correlated v~riables were used to identify, un monitored bas.i'1s in the greater'Seattle metropolitan area where recurrent, coho spawner; die-offs m()y be likely. This predictive map indicates a subst2mtial geqgraphic area of vulnerability for the Puget Sound, coho':population segment, a species of concern un'der the U.S. Endangered "Spedes Act. dur sl)'ati~JI 'risk repre'sentation' has 'num'erous' applications for urban growth management, j coho conservation', '; and basin resto,ration (e.g.,,: avoiding" the: unintentional, creatior· of, ecological, traps). Moreover, t,he 1,' {approach and ,tool,~ ,are .~ra~sfer~ble to .ar,e~s sUPP'?rt!n,g c?h~ t~r~y.g~9u~ yv~s.terf1 North ~~erica. ' I,.:... _,~ ...•... _,'-"' ,,,.--' ',.:..,.~,~.,,<,~" , .. ~, __ ,;,,,_~-,--__ , __ " ,...,':" ____ ~ :. ._, .,,_~ __ ~. _ :~,,~ ____ "'._ _ ____________ _ .. ,..1 Citation: Feist BE, Buhle ER, Arnold P, Davis JW, Scholz Nl (2011) Landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban Streams. PloS ONE 6(8): e23424. doi:l 0.1371 /journal.pone.OO23424 Editor: Howard Browman, Institute of Marine Research, Norway Received January 31, 2011; Accepted July 17, 2011; Published August 17,2011 This is an open·access artide, free of aU copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CCO public domain dedication. Funding: This work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -Coastal Storms Program; U.S. Fish and Wildlife SelVice • National Contaminants Program; City of Seattle (Seattle Public Utilities); and the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency· Region 10. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E·mail: blake.feist@noaa.gov Introduction In recent decades, human population growth and development have continued to increase along the coastal margins of North America [1]. The associated changes in land cover and human land use have elevated land-based sources of pollution, and toxic stonnwater runoff in particular, to become one of the most important threats to the biological integrity of basins, lakes, estuaries, and nearshore marine environments [2]. In the United States, concerns related to non-point source pollution have gained momentum over the past decade (e.g., [3,4]). This has culminated most recently in the designation of "water quality and sustainable practices on land" as one of nine National Priority Objectives for the newly established National Ocean Council, together with ecosystem-based management, marine spatial planning, climate change and ocean acidification, and changing conditions in the Arctic [2]. For toxic runoff, however, the connections between unsustainable practices on land and the decline of ecological resilience in aquatic habits remain poorly understood. In western North America, semelparous anadromous salmonids (Onco,.~vnchus spp.) typically migrate thousands of kilometers in their lifetimes. They hatch and rear in freshwater, migrate seaward to capitalize on the producti\;ty of the oceans to grow rapidly and reach sexual maturity, and then return to their natal streams to Spa\\'11 and die. Certain salmonids, including pink (0. gorbuscha) and .;@:: PloS ONE I www.pJosone.org .. . 1 chum (0. keto) migrate to the ocean relatively soon after hatching. Others, however, such as Chinook (0. tJhlJU!),tJcha), steelhead, (0. m),kiss), sockeye (0. n£rka), and coho (0. kisutch) may spend one or more years in freshw~lter lakes, rivers and streams. Because of this extended freshwater residency, juveniles of these species are potentially more vulnerable to anthropogenic modifications of freshwater habitat quality [5]. In contrasl to the high mortality experienced by juvenile salmon ids, mortality at the adult spawner life stage is relatively low. Familiar natural causes of mortality include predation, disease [6,7,8,9], stranding (following high flows), elevated strc::anl temperatures, and competition -e.g., in hahitats with abundant salmon returns and limited spawning substrate. Various human activities such as recreational and commercial fishing, stream dewatering, and the placement of migration barriers can also increase salmon spawner mortality. In general, however, salmon spawner mortality has not been attributed to toxic chemical contaminants in stonnwater runoff -a data gap that may be due, in part, to I) the relative rarity of salmon spawners in urban basins wilh poor water quality, and 2) the logistical difficulty of implementing toxicity studies on migratory, seawater-to-freshwa- ter transitional adults. The exception is a recently documented phenomenon of returning adult coho salmon dying at high rates in urban and urbanizing streams in lowland Puget Sound region, which includes August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 • the greater Seatde metropolitan area [10]. Coho rcturn to small coastal stream networks to spawn each fall. Entry into freshwater is . triggered by early autumn rainfall and rising stream flows. Since there had been extensive habitat degradation and loss in these lowlands, many basins were targeted for stream restoration projects in the 19905. Subsequent surveys to evaluate pr~jcct effectiveness discovered that many coho salmon were dying in newly-accessible stream reaches before [hey were able to spawn - i.e., female carcasses were found in good condition (ocean .bright colors) with skeins (membrane or sac that contains the eggs within the fish) filled "".jth ullspawned eggs [10]. In addition, affected coho from several different urban basins showed a similar progression of symptoms leading up to death, including disorientation, lethargy, loss of equilibrium, mouth gaping, and fin splaying. Systematic daily spawner sUlveys in recent years (2002-2009) have shown that adult mortality rates in urban streams are consistently high (relative to spawning coho salmon in more pristine areas), ranging from -25-90% of the tataJ fall runs [10]. Mortality rates of this magnitude likely have important negative consequences for maintaining viable coho populations [II). Consistent with this, most coho mortalities observed over the past decade were spa\\'I1ers that strayed (did not home to their nataJ stream reaches) into these restored urban freshwater habitats. The precise underlying cause of recurrent coho die~offs remains under investigation. An initial weight~of~evidence forensic study has systematically ruled out stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, poor overall spawner condition, tissue pathology (e.g., gill), pathogen prevalence or disease, and other factors commonly associated with fish kills in freshwater habitats (Scholz et al., unpublished data). These [mdings, together with the rapid onset of the syndrome, the nature of the symptoms (e.g., gaping and disequilibrium), and the consistent re·occurrence within and between urban basins over many years together point to toxic stonnwater runoff from urban landscapes as the likely cause of coho spawner mortality. Urban runoff and stonnwater-influenced combined sewer overflows (CSOs) contain an exceptionally complex mixture of chemicaJ contaminants. Specifically, urban streams are receiving waters for runoff and discharges containing pesticides [12], metals [I3J, petroleum hydrocarbons [14], plasticizers, flame-retardants, phannaceuticaJs, and many other potentially toxic chemicals. The list of possible causal agents is therefore long. The above chemicaJ complexity notwithstanding, there are severaJ reasons to suspect motor v~~icles as sources of toxies that are killing returning coho. Vehicles deposil many compounds on road surfaces via exhaust emissions, leaking fluids, and the wearing of tires, hrake pads and other friction materiaJs [15]. Emissions contain nitrogen and sulfur dioxide, benzene, fonnaldehyde, and a large number ofpolycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Fluids, including antifreeze and motor oil, contain ethylene and propylcne glycol and PAHs. Tire wear releases zinc, lead, and PAHs onto road surfaces [16], and brake pad wear is a major source of copper, zinc, nickel, and chromium [16,17]. Collectively, these contaminants accumulate on streets and other impervious surfaces until they are mobilized by rainfall and transported to aquatic habitats via runoff Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals such as copper are known to be toxic to fish, although acute lethaJity usually occurs at exposure concentrations that are higher (by orders of magnitude) than those typically detected in urban streams. It is likely that faJl stormwater pulses contain higher concentrations than winter and spring due to the potential buildup of contaminants during the relatively dry summer months. Although the adult die-off phenomenon has been ohserved in all Seattle-area urban ~treams where coho salmon occur, the overall ~.~.: Plo$ ONE I www.plosone.org . . 2 ECO.109Y of Salmon Mo~ality in Urban Streams rate of mortality has varied among basins. In qualitative tenns, a higher proportion of returning animals have survived to spawn in basins that have more open space (e.g., parks and woodlands). Conversely, mortality rates have been consistently higher in basins with proportionately greater "urban" land cover and land uses. This raises the possibility of a quantitative relationship between discrete basin characteristics and coho smvivaJ and spa\\'ning success. Such a relationship would be important for several reasons. First, if coho mortality is significamly correlated with one or more land cover or land use variables, the latter could bc used to identify unmonitored lowland basins 'Yhere coho populations are at greatest risk. Second, it could provide a means to evaluate how future human population growth and development might impact wild coho populations in Puget Sound (and elsewhere) that are currently healthy. FinaJly, it could narrow the list of potentially causative pollution sources in urban basins, thereby focusing furure toxicological st~dies to identify the specific contaminants involved. In this study we performed a spatiaJ analysis to identify landscape variables that correlate most closely with surveyed rates of coho spawner mortality across· six different basins in Puget Sound. The variables included land use and land cover, tax parcel types, . roadways, and impervious surfaces. We then used the information from these correlations to generate spatially explicit predictions of recurrent spawner losses in unmonitored basins throughout the four most densely populated counties in the greater Seattle metropolitan area. Materials and Methods Study Sites \Ve characterized habitat conditions within the drainage basins from streams at six sites in the Puget Sound lowlands (Figure 1). \Ve chose these sites because coho spawner mortality has been monilOred at these locations for severaJ years (2000--2009; [I OJ). The sites represent a wide ral~ge of anthropogenic alteration, from highly urbanized (e.g., Longfellow Creek) to relatively undisturbed (e.g., Fortson Creek). Fortson Creek is considered a non-urban site, whereas the other five sites are urban streams and have varying degrees of development. The urban streams have all been a focus of varying restoration project efforts aimed at enhancing habitat quality for anadromous Pacific salmon. With the exception of the relatively unaltered Fortson Creek site, all site basins had impervious surface proportions well above the levels (5-10%) commonly associated with the decline of biological integrity in streams [18,19]. Confirmed observation of the coho spawner mortality syndrome (see below) within a stream system was a key factor in study site selection. Importantly, natural production of coho in Seattle-area urban streanlS is very low. Not unexpectedly, recent modeling has shown that local coho population abundance declines precipitous- ly at rates of spawner mortaJity documented for these drainages [II]. The adult returns to these streams are thus likely to be animals straying into sink or attractive nuisance habitats. Conversely, the syndrome has not been documented in streams where coho are relatively abundant -i.e., non-urban basins, as confirmed by a full season of daily stream surveys on Fortson Creek. Therefore, to evaluate the phenomenon in relation to land cover, we were constrained to streams where coho are affected, even if adult returns to lhese basins were low in certain years. Lastly, there is no evidence that the mortality syndrome is related to the origin of the spawners (i.e., hatchery vs. wild figh). For example, artificiaJly propagated coho that return as adults to regionaJ halchery facilities in non-urban basins are unaffected. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 • ECD.logy of Salmon Mortality In Urban Streams WASHINGTON '1l c: , ~:.: . *"~:f;; .. ::~~. CQ ." 0 Site basins (I) -Dense ... --urba n (>75%) ~ .~ ~ Ullht-mecllum urba n «75%) " f -. t: ;:, . ., q, l '~ ;1 ---N A "-", K 10km Flgur. 1 . Six s tudy s ite s whe r e coho s pawne r mortality w a.s mon ito red a nd la ndscape conditions were quantified . Main map depicts the Greater Seattle MetropoUtan Area in Washington State. which is within the Puge t Sound/Georgia Basin of the Pacific Nonhwest. United States of America (USA). Inset map illustrates location of the study sites within Washington State and the location of Washington State within the USA. For reference. red shading on main map represents the relative Intensity of urbanization (light ·medium and dense urban [23,24]). Drainage ba si ns depicted in yellow shaded polygons represent the total basin Rowing Into a given stream reach site. Key for site numbers: 1 = Des Moines; 2=Fauntleroy. 3= Fortson ; 4 = Longfellow; 5 = Piper's; and , 6 = Thornton Creek. dol: 1 0.1371 /joumal.pone.OO23424.g001 St udy Subjects Coho salmon in this study were aU within the Pu gel Sound/ Strait o f Georgia Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). An ESU is :~.: PloS ONE I www .plosone.org .. 3 defUled as a group of populations th a t I) are su bstamiaU y reproductively isolated from co nspccifi c populations and 2) coUectivel y represent an important co mpone nt in th e evo lutionary August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 • legacy of the species [20]. Currently, Puget Sound/St!ait of Georgia coho are designated a "species of concern" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act [21]. Coho typically spawn in small Qowcr order) streams in the Puget Sound lowlands in late fall and early winter and their fry emerge from stream substrates from March to May. Fry reside in riverine habitats for 14--18 months, smalt, migrate to marine environments where they grow rapidly and mature (16-20 months), and finally migrate to their natal basins where they spawn and die [22]. The adult spawners from the-six study basins were both marked (adipose fin clipped) and unma'rked, suggesting a mix of hatchery and wild origins. Coho Spawner Mortality We used existing monitoring data collected as part of daily and weekly spawner surveys in each of the six study locations (fable I). Data were collected during the fall spawning season from 2000- 2009 by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), the Wild Fish Consel"\'ancy, and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (N\VFSC). Streams were checked every few days in the early fall (usually the first or second week in October, depending on rainfall) until the first adult coho was observed. The streams were then surveyed daily for the duration of the fall run, until the la<;t carc3..<;s was documented, typically in the first or second week of December. For several years, biologists working for the City of Seatde (\-Vild Fish Conservancy) also surveyed many of the same urban streams for coho spawner mortality on a weekly basis. Side-by-side compar- isons of daily and weekly survey data (e.g., for Longfellow Creek in 2005 and 2007) re\'ealed practically no loss of carcasses to scavengers. Accordingly, we included the weekly survey data in our analyses. The entirety of the available spawning habitat within a given urban drainage was surveyed for premature adult coho mortality. For somc streams, including Lonb.fellow Creek, mid-stream barriers to upstream migration confined adults to the lower portions of the drainage. This made it possible, in the course of a few hours as part of a daily sur\'ey, to inspect all sections of the stream that I) had a gra\'e1 substrate suitable for redds (spawning "nests" built by females), and 2) were focal areas for repeated (year-ta-year) redd building during successi\'e spawner runs. EceotOgy of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Monitoring dara were not collected at all sites for all years (fable I). Mortality among returning coho was quantified only for females on the basis of egg retention -i.e., the number of partiaUy spawned or unspawned female carcasses observed in streams over an entire spawning season. Notably, the totaJ number of returning adults was low for some years and some basins (Table I). Nevertheless, the aggregate spawner survey data used in this analysis are the most comprehensive currently available. Geospatial Datalayers \Ve used existing geospatial datalayers as our source of potential predictor variables and as a proxy for habitat type and condition. The datalayers were generated by a variety of organizations for planning and analytical purposes, making them suitable for running spatiaJ anaJyses on habitat. They were also available over the entire spatiaJ domain of our predictive model. \Ve used four geospatial datalayers: Land-co\'er of the Greater Puget Sound Region [23,24]; impervious and impacted surfaces [25]; property type (compiled from King [26], Kitsap [271, Pierce [28] and Snohomish county [29] tax parcel databases), and roadways (Puget Sound RegionaJ Council; PSRC [30]). The Land-cover of Puget Sound datalayer is the highest quality and most accurate depiction of land lise· and land cover in the Puget Sound lowlands. The datalayer used 30 m gridded I...fuW- SAT 'I'M imagery from 2002, which was extensively analyzed and corrected to produce ;;m accurate (83% overall accuracy, [24]) depiction of land use and land cover conditions. To reduce the total number of potential predictor variables, we only used the dense urban (>75%); light to medium urban «75%); and grass, crops and/or shrubs categories. \".le also combined the mixed and deciduous forest with the coniferous forest category and named it forests. . . The impervious and impacted surfaces datalayer was derived from a 2001 LANDSAT TM image with 30 m pixels and an accuracy of 83-91 % [25]. This datalayer depicts high to completely impermeable surfaces such as building roofs; concrete or asphaJt roads and parking lots; concrete, asphalt or brick sidewalks, pedestrian walkways) and malls; etc. One of the limitations of these two datalayers was that the pixel size of the source LAl\"'DSAT T~\:f imagery is 30 m, so smaJler Table 1. Coho spawner mortality proportion and cumulative number of female carcasses enumerated (in parentheses) by site (columns) and year (rows). Des Moines Fa,untleroy Fortson1 Longfellow Piper's Thornton ::,~!..;;~L:~.~: M"", :~,~~: ,~!::;.2~:~~.p"~~;:::U:'·:~::_::.~!::;:~:_¥~ 'J;,~~~~1,L ~~~} ',:'2-?~~. {~.3~!i"~:.~L:,~,t t: ._,.o.;~!_~!~" ,~ ___ ._ : .. "_I.~B·~,~(~,3l.." ~ __ ,,_~".J 2000) , .-. __ .-... _;;_ .... ..; .. 2001 0.22 (9) 0.61 (111) 0.70 (37) 0.82 (11) ~~~~~~.~~~~~. _ .. ".~~.~. . ~'n~~' ==L'~~"Ef~:~' J~:=~~~ ~?1-(114r~.::~~;.~~-=~~~-{~~~:·;1-~:·J~~2:~2-~~~:Ol·: -~~ ~ _ --=-~~.980 ~~ _~ .~~~ ~, ~-~-~ 2003 (0) 0.67 (18)a 0.00 (1) 1.00 (2) ~~~_;_: .. L~.~ .. 2007 2008 Il,_" ".~; •• ,-".s :" .. _:.":."".:":,.:,,,.,~., .. ,:.,,,,'_, .. _:.,,':'_" ..... 2009 II, ;:'"!"., .. ": -.,._ .. Rvera!I': A dash (-) indicates survey was not conducted for that year/site. aNorthwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) daily surveys, all others were weekly and collected by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) or the Wild Fish Conservancy [51,52]. 1 Non-urban site. doi: 1 0.1371 /joumal.pone.0023424.tOO 1 .• ~. PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org ., .. -4 August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e234~4 • features, such as roads and precise land cover boundaries, were not adequately captured. In order 1O address (his deficiency, we analyzed property types and roadways, as they are represented as precise polyline and polygon delineations of the corresponding land cover variables. The boundaries in these geospatial datalayers were derived from precise survey data from major metropolitan areas, collected over many years by King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The property types (parcels) datalayer was based on ground surveyed delineations of property, which are used for taxation purposes, with positional accuracy of +/-12 m or less [26,27,28,29]. The original number of parcel types described by each county was between 1 03 ~d 292. Using the descriptions in the documentation that accompanied the datalayers, we were able to place each of the original parcel types into one of the five following categories: apartments and condominiums; commercial; industrial; parks and open space; and, residential. The roadways datalayer was based on ground surveyed road and street centerlines. Each segment had a corresponding functional classification (FC##) code and \',:idth, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration [31] Highway Performance Monitoring System, and the Puget Sound Regional Council [30], respectively. We reduced the original nine functional classification types down to two categories: I) heavily used roads (rural minor collector [FeOS]; urban principal arterial -interstate [Fell]; urban principal arterial -other freeways and expressways [FCI2]; urban principal arterial -other [FC 14]; urban or rural minor arterial [FCI6 or FC06]; urban collector [Fe I 7]); and, 2) urban or rural local access roads (FC09 or FCI9). We then calculated the total area (total length of given street centerline segment multiplied by its width) of each street functional classification for each corresponding site basin. Spatial Analyses \Ve defined the area of influence of the surrounding landscape for each site as the total area draining into that site (basin). Drainage basins for each site were generated using the 'flowaccumulation' command in Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRl) ArcGIS (v. 9.3). \Ve used a United States Geological Survey (USGS) 10 m digital elevation model (OEM) as the underlying terrain for generating basins. We then intersected the corresponding basin boundary for each of the six sites with each of the geospatial datalayers and their associated categories using ArcGIS. We quantified each geospatial datalayer and its associated category in a given basin as the fraction or proportion of the total area of the· basin occupied by that geospatial datalayer or caiegory. Longfellow Creek stood apart from the other sites in terms of the accuracy of the flow accumulation model because an unknown fraction of stOnTI\\'ater runoff in this drainage is diverted into the municipal sewer system. Therefore, the theoretical basin area, based on the terrain represented in the DEM, was not as representative of the true basin area compared with the other five sites. Statistical Analyses We used generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLJ.1Ms; [32,33]) to test the relationships benveen geospatial variables and coho spawner mortality. The response was binomial (observed number of female spawner mortalities each year, given the total number of female coho that returned to each site) and the models used a logit link function. All models included a random effect of site on the intercept, which accounts for non independence of the repeated samples taken at each site. \Ve constructed a set of 139 candidate models by considering all combinations of the 12 ."~.: PloS ONE [ www.plosone.org s ECO.109y of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams predictors taken one, ruro, three or four at a time, with the restriction that a model could include at most one predictor from each of the four geospatial datalayers Qand cover, impervious surfaces, property types, and roadways). "Ve also excluded combinations of predictors that had a pairwise Speannan rank correlation exceeding 0.9 in absolute value. The candidate set included an intercept-only model as a no-effect baseline against which we could assess the predictive power of the geospatial variables. We fitted the models using the Laplace approximation to the marginal likelihood [32J in the Ime4 package in R [34,35]. We then used Akaike's information criterion, corrected for sample size (AlC c) to rank the strength of evidence for each candidate model based on the data. Akaike's information criterion is a weight-of- e\'idence measure that reflects the balance between a model's goodness-of-fit to the data and its parsimony (i.e., number of parameters). Lower AlCe \'alues indicate greater support, and are reported as differences (AAICJ relative to the best (smallest) value in me candidate sel. \Ve computed Akaike weights [36], which represent the relative support for each model, normalized so the weights sum to unity across the candidate set. \Ve used these weights to compute model-averaged estimates and unconditional standard errors (SEs) for the fixed regression coefficients, and we quantified the relative importance of each predictor using variable weights (i.e., the summed Akaike weights of all models that included that predictor; [36]). These model averaging calculations were based on the 95% confidence set of models (i.e., the top- ranked models whose cumulative Akaike weight is 0.95), after re- normalizing the weights. Mapping coho spawner mortality Using the fitted models, we built a map of predicted coho spawner mortality throughout the four counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish) representing much of the Puget Sound lowlands, by applying the G LM.M equations to geospatial data from unmonitored basins. We used basins delineated in the National Hydrography Dataset Plus [37] as the underlying mapping unit (300 ha mean, 466 ha SO) and intersected the NHDPlus datalayer with each of the geospatial datalayers used in the statistical analyses. Within the four-county region, we only made spawner mortality predictions in basins where coho salmon presence has been documented, based on current geospatial datalayers generated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [38]. We then calculated the proportion of each basin that was covered by the selected landscape feature. "Ve generated predicted vaJues of the proportion of mortalities from each model in the 95% confidence set and then modeJ-a\'eraged these values using the normalized Akaike weights [36]. These predictions apply to dle average basin in the Puget Sound coho ESU with some given set of habitat conditions, in the sense that the random effect of site was set to zero. To be conserv.ative in representing the precision of the predicted values, we di\~ded the calculated rates of likely coho spawner mortality into three bins: <10%, 10-50%, and >50%. These break points were chosen somewhat arbitrarily to represent low, medium and high spawner mortality rates. Results Vve found strong associations between land use and land cover attributes and rates of coho spawner mortality. Across the 95% confidence set of fitted models, three variables were particularly important for predicting mortality based on high variable weights: impen~ous surfaces, local roads, and commercial property type (fable 2 and Figure 2). There was substantial model selection August 2011 [ Volume 6 [ Issue 8 [ e23424 ~~----.~------------------------- • ECO.logy of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Table 2. Ale weights, model averaged parameter estimates and unconditional confidence intervals for each variable, ranked by Ale, weight. Land (over Dense urban Roadways Heavily used roads land cover Ught to medium urban' Property type Parks & open space doi:l0.1371/journatpone.OO23424,tOO2 uncertainty, reflected in a large 95% confidence set and large number of models with MICc<2.0 (37 and 8 of 139 candidate models, respectively; Table 3). In addition, although we excluded highly multicollinear combinations of \'ariables (1"1 >0.9), many variables were still strongly correlated, resulting in unstable parameter estimates and large unconditional SE estimates (Table 2). N onethdess, predictive models that included land use and land cover attributes as predictors were clearly superior to the i~tercept.only model (L\AIC c = 20.4; Table 3), supporting the association of these variahles with coho mortality. \-\/hile the multicollinearity among potential predictors made causal interpretation of the models difficult, it did not preclude predictions of where coho salmon are likely to be affected along an urbanization gradient. Not surprisingly, the highest predicted mortality rates were clustered around the major metropolitan areas of eastern Puget Sound, contained within Snohomish, King, Kitsap, and Pierce counties (Figure 3). In addition, there is a significantly sized area in Eastern Puget Sound that has considerable proportions of the variables Qocal roads, impervious surface and commercial parcels) most correlated with substantial mortality rates. It is important to note that these predicted values ha\'e substantial associated uncertainty and should therefore be interpreted cautiously; however, it is reasonable to use them for assigning lhe break points for the low, medium, and high mortality rate categories represented on the map. Discussion Overall, we have used conventional tools in landscape ecology to shed light on an unusually complex ecotoxicological challenge. Our analyses strongly suggest that specific characteristics of basins in the Puget Sound lowlands are linked to the die·offs of coho spawners that ha\lc been widely observed in recent years. Across basins, the strength of the association is greatest for imper\'ious surfaces, local roads, and commercial property. \Ve did not evaluate hydrologic or geomorphic basin characteristics as part of our analysis. Ne\,ertheless, our findings support the hypOl.hesis that coho are being killed by as-yet unidentified toxic chemical contaminants thar originate from these types of surfaces ~:~.: PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org 6 Model 0.3865 -7.7776 0.2019 5.3445 0.1149 0.3250 2.9751 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 and are transported to salmon spawning habitats via stormwater runoff. Our results extend a large body of scientific information linking urbanization (broadly defmed) and degraded water quality to a loss of biological integrity (sensu Karr [39]) and productivity in freshwater stream netv.'orks [18,40,41]. Previous studies have generally related land use and land co\'er variables to macroin· vertebrate assemblages in streams [42], or to the relative abundance of salmon and other fish (e.g., [22,43,44]). The present analysis is novel because it relates basin characteristics direcdy to sahnon health and SUT\-i"'al, versus species presence or absence. Moreover, it offers new insights on the water quality aspects of urban runoff. The focus of most salmon restoration projects is physical characteristics of spawning and rearing habitat [45]. Most sahnon specific restoration projects are deemed successful if they simply restore the physical habitat to a suitable state for a given species [46]. Our study suggests that suitable spawning and rearing habitat may not be supporti\'e of coho salmon persistence when the surrounding landscape is urbanized. The linkages between increased impervious coverage within a basin, increased storm- water runoff, altered hydrologic processes, and ecological decline are well established (e.g., [18]). However, stann water impacts encompass both physical and chemical drivers of decline, and it can be difficult to distinguish between these .. -ia in situ assessments because str~am im'ertebrate communities integrate both stressor categories. Coho salmon spawners, by contrast, appear to be promising and specific sentinels for the degraded water quality aspect of urban runoff. Compared to macroinvertebrate sampling and taxa identification, the coho mortality syndrome is relatively easy and inexpensive for non·specialists to monitor in the fonn of digital video recordings of symptomatic fIsh, or the presence of unspawned female carcasses in streams. Interestingly, the mortality syndrome appears to be specific to coho salmon. For example, there were temporally overlapping runs of coho and chum salmon (0. bf,a) in Piper's Creek in the fall of 2006. Whereas all of the adult coho succumbed to ·the mortality syndrome, the chum were unaffected, with nearly all sUT\,iving to spawn (130 of 135 spawned out female carcasses; Scholz et aI., unpublished data). Consistent with this, the survey August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 . 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 • Oes Moines o Fauntleroy • Fortson o Longfellow ... Piper's A Thornton • Eca.IOgy of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams o • • 8 0.0 .---~---~--<O>---~---~,~ .• ~--~ 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 • .0 • .8 • Impervious • o B ~ o o +-----~----,~.~>__~----,_----__ ----~--_r_--__ 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Commercial o B ~ 0 • o o 8 0.12 0.14 0.16 A • A 1\ • • • A • t +-----~·---~----~----~----,_----,_~O ~~ 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Local roads Figure 2. Female coho spawner mortality as a function of the proportion of each of the top three predictors in a given site basin, at the six study sites. Individual points correspond to specific years for each site. Mortality expressed as proportion of all returning females that died in a given year. Solid circle = Des Moines; hollow circle = Fauntleroy; solid square = Fortson; hollow square = longfellow; solid triangle = Piper's; hollow triangle = Thornton Creek. doi:l0.1371/journal.pone.OO23424.g002 teams have not observed the characteristic symptoms (e.g., surface swimming, gaping) among other fish species that inhabit urban streams such as sticklebacks and cutthroat trout. Not only are coho unusual in this respect, the phenomenon appears to be restricted to the adult life stage. In the fall of 2003, surface flows from Longfellow Creek were diverted through streamside sheds .:~: PloS ONE I www.plosone.org 7 housing aquaria that contained individual juvenile coho from the NWFSC hatchery. The juveniles (n = 20) were maintained and observed daily throughout the fall spawner run. Overall juvenile survi\'al was 100%, and the juveniles behaved nonnally, even on days when symptomatic adults were observed in the nearby stream (Scholz et al., unpublished data). The underlying reasons August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 • Table 3. Summary of the 95% confidence set (37 of a total of 139 candidate models) of candidate models used to generate map of mortality rates, showing intercepts, estimated coefficients, .1AIC c and WAKe. Intercept only model included at bottom for reference. Model Equation ~,*~;~:;~:: ~_;~~,~i~·;~~~~~t:!~~,"":1;;1iL:."L_:._;~_: .. ~:.~~,.L_9:~?~i:~J c+d+b -3.9215-109.56(b)+48.7S(c)-29.98(d) 0.046 0.0912 EEr:;:J=::E~}i~itj:~~:?3§~:§~i~!~11~~~~~J]J~~;;]~~~~?3=:;J~~~~~j c+d+a -4.4921+12.61(a}+14.03(c)-7.54(d) 0.579 0.0698 5!~~[m]=~E~~~;§~~:~:H~~~~3~~~EI~:~~~!:~i;:i:~!jr~[;j:llD~~¥Jl'~ifH:~~:U h+a+b -2.6065+ 15.89{a)+30.87(b) -2.38(h) 1.150 0.0525 ~~'~;b~~: ,1; ·:·-:'4.662~ 1'6.3 7'i~)~35:26ib)~2:i6(ifilL1;";i;~i::~:~1!:i:ll:357: !~:1~·.0473'~1 ,..."j"-" . .....ll..,'-, ... 1: ... I:l:-•• ;:,~) •• ;" ;"'1._, '-' ..... I._,_.'""II..;('"fjA(_i._'._;:"',._I;.,U,'I_,:.~i~,-'.l;.i,I_;-,_I.:" d+a+b -4.7001+17 .52(al+43.83(b)+ 1.62(d) 1.576 0.0424 ~?~:'·1~.=~':I?~·~E~~?J~~~~3~:~28j~}~'1;1~;~1~~~:~::'J~:=;::"l: ~;~~S,,'~~6:,?r~~-~:.1 c+d+i+b -3.0628-83.44(b}t56.38(c)-40.28(d)-7.82(i) 2.485 0.0269 ~i;:~~f.:'~~:~~?:3,~S,5~!~~I~'§E~~E~~:[13~?!~~~~q[i;~t :~A~1~~.l ct-d+k+b -3.9266-94.52(b}+43.32(cl-25.00{d)-1.60(kl 2.613 0.0253 t~~"~j=, -2:~}.;"~~O:?3.!~~~'J?!~1:i?~i~ ::l~:; 'i_2:7~~ ~~?~~~'J c+d+a+b -4.0864+3.99(aj-76.44(b)+38.23(c)-23.27(d) 2.885 0.0221 ~.~~( _~ ~~~!3~~5~~;~:~f~F~~"i(~t~~Ioffl~=::' ~~~2~~ '1~~ fJ c+d+e+b -3.9607-100049{b}t46.40(c)-27o43(dl-554(el 2.954 0.0213 ~~~~.~~ ~~,3~!3.o:~T~~~~~~E:dJ.~~~:6~~E~i~~!~:;~~I3~B2~~~~O~~1 ~~J c+g+e+f -3.8534+12.93(cl-40045(e}t38.73(f}-0.18(g) 3.294 0.0180 j~"1!' ~-.-'--] 1':'"'''''''' -"""'''.,~ ... ~''''~ ,,-',-"':1'''''''1'''''''0'-' -7":-,.:--'.' ""T:-'_':",' '-! ....... , f:tj-:::.:':~~, ,;; ,'" G~',~~~~B~~!~;:~;~~~~~~,~:~;~~:L~::~,9,l, ;:_,,!~:r.:~,~~ ,;~,p:e~?~.~! c+g+a+f -4.6143+ 16.25(a)+5.79(c) -13.4O(0+4.06(g) 3.378 0.0172 ~~~[~i: :[C~~:;~~~~:~~f~l~:~~::9Z~~),~j~;~~:\lj:;:!::;j;;;,r~[, i:::!:~·:~~:~::~B·p~~~·~l h+i+b 9.3911 -153.97(bj-17049(h)+15.89(ij 3.858 0.0136 h+a 1.2512+8.63{aj-6.13(h) 4.028 0.0124 ~~j~'~~b':!' :··;~4.5887~ ;' 6:~:i"i;)~34'25{b)+:2':72'ikl';;to:750)'''~8' :j;"l~'.299'\:·?o:mo9':1 ""o<.'""".~, ~'M,~" ''"''~ ... ~,~,, __ '_~'_~'_""'~;""'M'''''''." ;,,, ",.,.,~" ",,,,,,,, ,,,'. ,,,l, ....... "M''''',j h+k+b 5.8364-27.35(b)-11.39(hl-5.97(kj 4.837 0.0083 Ei~_~,~·.: ::,~S~'~~5~i~·~~'~f5jA:~:~~~~~~:~g'~::~:"f~,~~:;·~;·~~~.~;9~:·-:~~,~B2,:: I c+j+k+b -204511-52.30(b)+20o45(c)-13.34(j)-10.6O(k) 4.937 0.0079 F~!~~~~ ~-C.~?~~2~~Oi?~~):~·1:idl~S3jll~~"'··:;~~.~.~"'~_~~fi:] c+e+b -4.4680-1.36(b)+ 19.52(c)-52.48(e) 5.158 0.0071 ~~g~~~: '~=-4~5~~I~!i~~~j~13!~1~!:~£:~~~~' ,., ~.~~2~5:1~: ., O~~?~] h+e+b 8.1285-20.52(b)-45.07(e)-14.67(h) 5.509 0.0059 ft~~~~:~=L:~-:~':~4~~i3iq§j~·31 (k) ~S;Z1~':'~.~~~.~:.~·.~2~':~~~:: ~~~5,~ ~"~ c+i+b -5.6775-141.73{b}+22.77{cl+17.24{i) 5.821 0.0051 t"·t' ,. '" '1"-"~':'"··':·',·"--:-·"-'-"··r' '--~W·", 'I -., 7.)"_.", .... , .;"',..-,..,,..... "':'":t"""'-_. '--l .:;,¥~:...~,:'!~: ~~~71.~.:lf:~!?!tJ~~.~i~t~:~~~lji".L;:'):]; ~:8,~,;i:!,p~,·~?:.., h+a+f 004930+6.87(a)+19.67(f)-5.22(h) 6.083 0.0045 ~!~i!t'~-J~J~"~~T~iB~:~~~Fl~~~~i~F~;~!)~*~~]~~j:E:;~~~~~;~:?~~?'~J~;! Intercept N/A 200428 0 only Model weights shown here (Ire re-normalized for the set of 37 top-ranked models shown. a = commercial; b~ local roads; c== impervious; d = dense urban; e:::apartments and condominiums; f;heavily used roads; g",dight to medium urban; h ~ forest; i .. residential; j "" grass, crops and/or shrubs; and, k::: industrial. doi:l ?13 71 /journa I.pone .0023424.t003 for the syndrome's surprising uniqueness to adult coho are not yet known. Daily or weekly stream surveys are labor intensive, and for Lhis rcason only a subset of urban drainages in Puget Sound have been '''~.: PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 8 ECeOIOgy of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams monitored to date. The GIS-based mapping tool developed for this study can be used to focus future monitoring efforts on basins with a higher likelihood of coho die-offs based on land cover attributes. In addition to the basins we have identified within the range of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ESU, Lhis approach could be extrapolated to other geographic areas where coho return to spawn along a gradient of urban growth and development. This includes, for example, coho from the Lower Columbia River ESU, a threatened population segment with a spawner range encom- passing the greater metropolitan area of Portland, Oregon. Overall, future surveys 'v\iU ground-truth initial model outputs and provide additional data that can be used to improve the predictive accuracy of the mapping tool. Our findings have two near-teml applications. First, they identify likely "hotspots" for coho spawner mortality throughout central Puget Sound. Given that recurring adult losses at a rate greater than approximately 10% are likely to substantially reduce local population abundances, the high mortality basins in Figure 3 (l0-50% and> 50% predicted mortality categories) may represent sink habitats for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ESU. This is an important consideration for coho recovery planning at the local, county, and regional scales. Second, our results indicate areas where toxic runoff could potentially undennine stream restoration efforts -specifically, strategies that improve physical and biological habitat conditions (flow, connectivity, channel complexity, ripar- ian function, etc.) as a means to boost coho population productivity. The potential influence of rainfall, including timing, frequency, and indi\,jdual stonn intensity, remains an area of active investigation. Throughout the years of stream surveys, it has been qualitatively evident that rainfall influences the mortality syndrome. For example, salmon that arrive and enter a stream during an extended dry interval (a week or more) often survive and then become symptomatic and die when it next rains (S~holz et al., unpublished data). One of our aims in surveying Longfellow Creek (the stream with the most abundant overall returns) for more than a decade was to evaluate intcr-annual variation in coho spawner mortality in relation to rainfall. However, a quantitative analysis has proven problematic due to highly variable rainfall patterns in combination with low adult returns in some years. It is clear, however, that the syndrome is not a simple first-flush phenomenon. In most years, both egg retaining and spawned out carcasses were observed across the 8- 10 week fall run, irrespective of the number and size of rain events over that interval. Over the longer term, an approach similar to the one developed here could be used to forecast the likely impacts of future human population growth and development on Puget Sound coho populations lhat are currently healthy. For example, the expansion of local road networks is a core focus for urban growth planning, and these projections could serve as a basis for cvaluating how and where coho spawner mortality will increase under different growth management scenarios. This, in tum, would inform strategies to reduce or mitigate toxic runoff in highly productive basins, in advance of expanding transportation infrastructure -i.e., prevention vs. costly retrofits to the built environment. Also, our modeling approach could be expanded to include the timing and intensity of rainfall as potentia1 drivers for coho spawner mortality. Rainfall patterns may be a key detenninant of stonnwalcr quality, although more work in this area is needed. Climate change is expected to shift regiona1 rainfall patterns, and it should be possible to explore how this will interact with changing land cover (urbanization) to influence stonnwater quality and toxic runoff to coho spawning habitats. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 • '"@:' PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org ., ... 9 ECO.I09y of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams • Study sites ~".,..,.., N A 10km = August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 • ECC_I09y of SalmO," Mortality in Urban Streams Figure 3. Predictive map of modeled coho spawner mortality rates within the Puget Sound lowlands. Mortality rates are a function of the proportion of key landscape variables within a given basin. Green, yellow and red areas indicate basins with predicted rates of spawner mortality (as a percentage of total fall runs) of <10%, 10-50%, and >50%. respectively. Black dots denote locations of the six study sites that were the basis for this analysis. Thick dashed black line depicts the southern boundary of the coho salmon Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Evolutionarily SignificaOnt Unit (ESU). Basins that do not have documented presence of coho salmon [38] are not represented on the map, even if they have landscape conditions associated with coho spawner mortality. Key for site numbers: 1 = Des Moines; 2 = Fauntleroy; 3 = Fortson; 4 = longfellow; 5 = Piper's; and, 6 = Thornton Creek. doi:l 0.1371 /journal.pone.0023424.g003 ""'hile not definitive, our results reinforce the parsimonious explanation that coho deaths are caused by one or more contaminants originating from motor vehicles. As noted earlier, this is important because it narrows the list of candidate toxies in complex urban landscapes. Future toxicological studies should focus on two ubiquitous urban nmoff contaminant classes in particular. The first are metals in brake pads and other vehicle friction materials. Copper, zinc, and other metals are known to specifically target the fish giU, thereby disrupting respiration and osmoregulation [47]. The second, PARs, [14,48,49] are taken up across the fish gill, and can impair cardiac function and respiration [50]. The symptoms displayed by affected coho (surface sv,rimming, gaping, loss of equilibrium, etc.) are consistent with a disruption of respiration, osmoregulation, or circulation, or some combination of these. Notably, PAHs and metals usually cause the above toxicological effects at concentrations well above those typically detected in urban streams. However, the majority of conventional toxicology studies using salmonids fOCliS on freshwater species (e.g., rainbow trout) or the freshwater life stages of juvenile anadromous species. There are practically no toxicity data for coho salmon at the adult spawner stage. Many important osmoregulatory changes take References I. Weinstein MP, Baird RC, Conover DO, Gross M, Keulartz J, et al. (2007) Managing coastal resources in me 21st century. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 43---48. 2. Interagency Oa:an Policy Task Force (2010) Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, DC: The White House Council on Environmental Quality. 96 p. 3. Pew Oceans Commission (200:'1) America's u\'ing Occans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, Virginia: Pew Charitable Tmsts. 166 p. 4. U.S. Commission on Ocean I'olir:y (2004) An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Centul)': Final Repon. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Ocean Pnlicy. 676 p. 5. Spromherg JA, Meador JP (2006) Relating chronic toxicity responses· to population-IC\'e! effects: A comparison of population·level parameters for three salmon species as a fUllction of low-level toxicity. Ecological ]\foddling 199: 240---252. 6. Raverty S, Kieser D, Bagshaw.l, St-Hilaire S (2000) Renal infestation with Parvicap.rula 7IliniJJuornis in wild sockeye salmon from the Harrison and Adams rivers in British Columbia. Canadian VeterinaryJoumal41: 317-318. 7. St-Hilaire S, Boichuk 1\1, Barnes 0, lliggins M, Devlin R, et al. (2002) Epizootiology of Pan'uapsu/a minihitorni., in Fraser River sockeye salmon, Oncorl!J7Uhus npia (\Valbaum).journal ofFish Diseases 2.'i: 107-120. 8. Kocan R, Hershberger P, Winton J (2004) Ichthyophoniasis: An emerging disease of Chinook salmon in the Yukon River. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 16: .'i8-72. 9. Keefer ML, Taylor GA, Garletts OF, Gauthier GA, Pierce Ttd, et al. (20 I 0) PrespawlI mortality in adult spring Chinook salmon outplanted above barrier dams. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19: 361-372. 10. McCarthy SG, IncardonaJP, Scholz NL (2008) Coastal Storms, Toxic Runoff, and the Sustainable Consr.rvation ofFish and Fisheries. In: ~IcLaughlin KD, cd. ~irigating Impacts of Natural Hazards on Fishel)' Ecosystems. Bethesda, 1\1D: American Fisheries Society. pp 7-27. II. Spromherg JA, Scholz NL (2011) Estimating the ruture {b;line of wild coho salmon poplulation due to premature spawner die-off. in urbanizing watersheds, of me Pacific Northwest. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Manage- ment;dni: 10.1002/ieam.219. 12. Hoffman RS, Capel PD, Larson &1 (2000) Comparison of pesticides in eight U.S. urban Streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 2249-2258. 13. Tiefenthaler LL, Stein ED, Sclliff KC (2008) Walen.hed and land use-based sources of trace metals ill urban storm water. .Environmelltal Toxicology and' Chtmistry 27: 277-287. "t1i1i " :~., " " PloS ONE I www.plosone.org 10 place during the transition from seawater prior to spawning, and these may render adult coho more vulnerable to metals and PAHs than freshwater-resident salmonids. Adding to this complexity is the possibility of interactive toxicity (e.g., synergism) among contaminant mixtures. Studies that experimentally reproduce. the familiar symptomology and mortality in adult coho, under controlled exposure conditions with environmentally realistic mi.xtures of metals and PAHs, " .. rill likely be necessary to definitively implicate motor vehicles. Acknowledgments We thank John Williams and an anonymous reviewer for significantly improving previous drafts of this manuscript. Disclaimer: the findings, conclusions and views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the National Oceanic and Aanospheric Administration or tJ1e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: BE.F JWD NLS. Perfonned the experiments; liEF ERR PA. Analyzed the data: BEF ERE PA. Wrote the paper: BEF ERB NLS. 14. Stein ED, Tiefenthaler LL, Schiff K (2006) Watershed·based sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban stonn water. Environmental TOlCicology and Chemistry 25: 373-38S. 15. Conko K1I, Rice KC, Kennedy 11M (2004) Atmospheric wet deposition of trace elements to a suburban environment, Reston, Virginia, USA. Atmospheric F.nviromnent 38: 4-025-4033. 16. Davis AP, Shokouhian M, Ni SB (2001) Loading estimates of lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc in urb~ul runoff from specific sollrces. Chemosphere 44: 997-1009. 17. Bourcier DR, Hindin E (1979) Lead, iron, chromium and zinc in road runoff at Pullman, Washington. Science of the Total Em'ironment 12: 205-215. 18. Booth DR,jackson CR (1997) Urbanization of.aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stonn"''3ter detection, and the limits of mitigation. journal of the American \Vater Resources Association 33: 1077-1090. 19. Cuffney TF, Brightbill RA, 1\ray]T, Waite fR (2010) Responses of benthic macroinvenebrates to environmental changes associated with urbanization in nine metropolitan areas. Ecological Applications 20: 13R4-140 I. 20. Johnson 0, Waples R, Wainwright T, Neely K, Waknitz F, et al. (I 994-} Status Review for Oregon's Umpqua Ri\'er Sea-Run Cutthroat TrOll!. Washington, DC: US. Department of Commerce. 21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminislr.ttion (2004) Endangered and Threatened Species; E.stablishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species nfConcern List, Description of Factors for Identi(vi.ng Species of Concern, and Revision of Candidate Species lfst Under the Endangered Species Act Federal R(;gister. pp 19975-19979. 22. Pess GR, Montgomery DR, St(;ei FA, Bilby RE, Feist BE, et al. (2002) Landscape c.haracteristics, land use, and coho salmon (OntDrhyndws kisutch) abul\cianc~, Snohomish River, V.'ash., USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 613-623. 23. An~ni M, Weeks R, Coe S (2004) Urban land·cover change analysis in Central Puget Sound. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70: I 0.J3-1 052. 24. Albeni :-"1, Weeks R, lIepsintallJ, Rus.~dl C, Coe S, et at. (2004) Puget Sound Regional Synthesis Model: 2002 Land-co\'tr Analysis of the GrUler PUgel Sound Region. Seattle, \VA: University of Washington. 26 p. 2.'i. Horner C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie Il, Coan 1\r (2001) Development ofa 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70: 829-840. 26. King County (2000) King Coumy Tax Parcels. CD·R01\l. Seattle, \VA: Kitlg County. 27. Kitsap County (2010) Land Information Syst(;m (US): Tax Parcels. August 2011 I Volume 6 1 Issue 8 I e23424 • 28. Pierce County (2008) Tax Parcels. Tacoma, WA: Pierce County Assessor- Treasurer. 29. Snohomish County (2010) Parcels Snohomish County Assessor. 30. Puget Sound Regional Council (2005) Road ccntcrlines and widths. Available: http://www.psrc,org. Accessed: 2005 Aug 16. 31. Federal Highway Administration (1989) Functiona.l Classification Guiddincs U.S. Department of Transportation. 34-p. 32. Balker BM, Brooks ~IE, Clark Cj, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, ct aI., (2009) Generaliud linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 127-135. 33. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel! hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 648 p. 34. Pinheiro JC, Bales DM (2ool) Mixed-dfeClS models in S and S-PLUSj Chambers], Eddy W, Hardie W, Sheather S, Tierney 1.., eds. New York, l\'Y: Springer Vedag. 528 p. 35. R Development Core Team (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2.12.0 ed. Vienna, Austria: The R Development Core Team. 36. Burnham KP, Andel1lon DR (2002) Model selection and multimodd inference: A practical infonnation theoreuc approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 488 p. 37. U.S. Envirorunentall'rotecrion Agency, U.S. Geological Su,,'ey (2005) National Hydrography DaU.5et Plus -NHDPlus. Available: hup:II .... 'Ww.honron-syslems. com/NHDPlus/HSC-wthI7.php. Accessed: 2010 May 26. 3B. \-\'ashington Department ofFish and Wildlife (2011) 1:21,000 Fish Distribulion of Washington State: \Nashington Lakes and Rivers Infonnation System (WLRIS) -fishdist. Fehruary 2011 ed. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 39. Karr JR (1991) Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected AspeCt of Water Resource ~(anagement. Ecological Applications I: 66-B4. 40. ,601berri M, Boom D, Hill K, Coburn B, A\'olio C, et al. (2007) The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical anal)''Sis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landscape and Urban Planning BO; 34S-36\. 41. Wenger Sj, Roy AH, jackson CR, Bernhardt ES, Carter TL, et aI. (2009) Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ewlogy: an assessment of the state of the science. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 2B: I OBO-I 098 . . ~. :,&., Plo$ ONE I www.plosone.org 11 EC.Ology of Salmon M~rtality in Urban Streams 42. Morley SA, Karr jR (2002) Assessing and restoring the health of urban str~anls in the Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology 16: 149B-1509. 43. Bilby RE, Mollot LA (200B) Effect of changing land use patterns on the distribution of coho salmon (Om:orl9'nchus lis/deb) in the Puget Sound region. Canadian journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 2138-2148. 44. Feist BE, Steel EA, jensen DW, Sather DND (2010) Does the scale of our obse"'ational window affect our conclusions about correlations between endangered salmon populations and their habitat? Landscape Ecology 25:. 727-713. 45. Committee on Protection and l\1anagement of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, Nauonal Research Council (1996) Habitat Management and Rehabilitation. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp 204-2:25. 46. Katz SL, Bamas K, Hicks R, CowenJ,Jenkinson R (2007) Freshwater Habitat Restoration Actions in th~ Pacific Northwest: A Decade's Investment in Habitat Improvement. Restoration Ecology 15: +94-505. 47. Niyogi S, Wood eM (2004) Biotic Ligand Model, a Flexible Tool for Developing Sit~-Specific Water Quality Guidelines for Metals. Environmental Science & Technology 3B: 6177-6192. 48. Hoffman fj, Latimer jS, ~Iills GL, QuinnJG (1982) Petroleum hymocarbons in urban runoff from a commercial land use area. Journal \Vater Pollution Control Federation 54: 1517-1525. 49. Whipple W, I1unterJV (1979) Petroleum hydrocarhons in urban nmoff.journal of the American Water Resources Association L'i: 1096-1105. 50. Claireaux G, Davoodi F (2010) Effect of exposure to pelroleum hydrocarbons upon cardio-respiratory function in the common sole (Soka solea). Aquatic Toxicology9B: 113-119. SI. McMillan B (2007) The Spawning Survey Findings from Seattle's Thornton, Piper's, Longfellow, Fauntleroy and Taylor Creeks, September 21, 2006 to january 24, 2007. Also including the cumulative spawning survey data from 1999-2006 and Des Moines Creek ill 2003 and 2004. Seanle, Washington, USA: Seattle Puhlic Utilities. 52. Wild Fish Consen:anc), (200B) Spawning SUivey Findings from Seattle's Thornton, Piper's, Longfellow, Fauntleroy alld Taylor Creeks. Seattle, Washington, USA: Seattle Public Utilitics. August 2011 I Volume 6 1 Issue 8 I e23424 " ' .. ',,. . " : Denis.Law .. : ~ayor . ',.:.. .... ;. . • Jariuary16,2014. , 'R~bertGarlo~gh 3203 SE 18th ~T Renton, WA98058 -, : . " . . ••• .. ,,- I .. : . . ," Depari';'ent ofC6mmunity and EconomicDevelopment . . . . . C:E. "Chip"Vincent,Administrator' ~ .. -.. ... . " ' ... . ',: ,-.. ' . SUBJECT: . RESERVE ATTIHANY PARK COIVIMENT RESPONSE LETTER' .', .LUAi3~001572,PPi Eel' .. ' • . '..;' ',' • 'De~r Mr.Garlo~gh: .... Thank you for y()ur comrnents related to the Res~rve at Tiffany p~rk;dat~dNovemb~r " 14, 2013 wherein you requestedthe city coilsiderrequiriilg the applicantto reduc~ th~' '. ',numberlots proposedi~ordertomitigate potential traffic impacts on SE 18 thSt.Your· letter will be addedtq thepubJic record forcbnsideration by the reViewing official arid youh~yebeen added asaparty,of record. . . . · ~s apoirit ofclarification>tn'e City has yettomakea d~dsiOn()n'th~p~oposal. The'" · applicant, HenleyUSALLC; has cinly'madeap~lication foraPr~liminarYPlatand' Envir6nme~tal Review for the subject developm~nt~hd ad~cisiori has yetto be.made.·· · ,You rec~ived ~notice soliciting publiC ccimmentand thesecomrrients are used h~lpthe City staff complete a comprehensiVe review 0hic,h' ";'ill continue over the 'nextcou'pleof ., .•. months. ." . " " ' . ,,': '. · .VVhilethe'p~oposal v:.ilLflot specifically tie r'eviewed 0ith resPect to impactson . . . ' swroundirig, property values theCi1:ywill'r,evi~wtheproposaf with regard toth'e' , ... p~6tection ofvai~ableerivironmental ameriities <indto enslJrethe d~velopmeritisa~' .. ' . . '" ·.co'mpatibleas possible withtheecological·balanceof the a~ea .. The goals of the City are' , .. ' .: . . to preserve drainage patterns,. protect groundwater'supply,pr~ventercisi6n and to . · p~eserve trees and natural vegetation: Additicinally, the applica~ntis required to' .. demonstriiteproper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, . utilities, imd services). " , ,.... " ." .' .' .. c ' , , • ··.Theapplicahfhas pro~ided a Transp~rtaticinAnalysis,prepared by a certified· .. '.' "profession~l, which intludes p'otentialmitigation for proposed transportaticinimpacts, . The City has how~v~r placedthep~oject on hoidpendingthereceipt of an independent: · , secondary review of the, applicant's transp()rtation analysis and the effectiveness of the· p'roposedmitigatiol1 ,. ...,. '.' , "".' " • <' •• '---'_-.. r~-"_:c __ cc __ cc, ~--'---------------------------------------- r.-1r, Garlough' ' Page 2 012 ' • "'., January 16,2014 . 0' ' ; .' " TheCity is happy to provide access to, the file/reports for vie~ing and copying (at SO,15 • per page), If you are int~restedin viewingthefile you are able to come to the front " ,desk, on the6thfloor of'City Hall, between the hours 8:00, ~m ~nd 5:00 pm and request , the fiie, I am also ab'le to forward pl1ms!reports via email if you would like please just let: • me know: .. ' ,," ",' , " , As a reminder, The' City has plhced the: project on hold, orid ccmcelled the public hearing originally scheduled on Jcitiuaryt3, 2014, pending the receipt of additional , information by the, applicant. ' Given there was a major Jiolidayduring the' initial p'ublic comment period theCitywiil~' , conduct an additionaltwo-weel{public coniine~tperiod o~cerequestedmaterials have, ,', bee'n SUbmitted, "Notic,e of the start of the', additional comrn~nt period and the , reSCheduled hearing date will be provided in the form of:,an additionall~tterto all ,<' " , p'ro'perty owners within300feet ofthe,subject property; notices postediri at least three" ' , conspicuous places near the property; and youwillreceive(in the mail)a courte~y copy , of the off-hold letter provided tothe applicimt,' , ' " ' , ,. ,.... '. Thankyouf6r intereSt in this project and ,if you have ~ny further questions please feel free to contactnie at 4,25-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa:gov, Thank you, ' '" . ' ..,' - -:,'-. ~Si"''':fd~ .•...••. DC Ihim ","',',' ,', ,,',,' 'Se 6rPI~nner' '."",":,"", . .. ' ": . . -"' .:: "." ~------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Garlough 3203 SE 18th Street Renton, WA 98058 • To: City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 • Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Subject: Comments to Proposed Land Use Action entitled, "Reserve at TIffany Park" I have reviewed the Subject "Proposed Land Use Action," as posted on the sign at the end of SE 18th Street. While I realize that the developer wants to maximize their profit from the land, I find it unacceptable for the City of Renton to allow plans that minimize the cost to the developer while showing little apparent regard for the impact to the safety and convenience of the surrounding community. \ The plans show 98 houses, with all traffic funneled to only two access roads: one on 124th Place SE and another on SE 18th Street. Given the speed bumps to the South of the neighborhood and the fact that most people commute towards the city, I expect that the lion's share of the new traffic will travel on SE 18th Street -converting it from a safe and quiet cul-de-sac into a busy residential arterial streetl There is generally a 6% to 16% penalty in property values for living along a busy street. My neighbors and I have paid a lot of money to be on a cul-de-sac. Therefore, please consider mitigating the impact by allowing dramatically less houses in the 'TIffany Park Reserve' development, or by requiring at least one more access road. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, or to notify me of any hearings for the subject development. Robert D. Garlough bob@garlough.org 425-227-0090 / • • .... - r;i;uollso ,!'IClCoR :mo, 'I LI:~'~' r'1'1 i 32 J_,j\,.~ 8i'08::? AW .'.oln9f. 10!rl~R If) vli J ;oT nOI?lvi(i l::.dlv-1S2 fnsmqcL\''-,10 '!,;'N VD610 rhuo, c20[ C2oa!:,c'.';j .nu!ll9l' .1',':1; lilS! ',,: it) [",'.I' ,~J j ,r1~i~ :if;j '"'0 b'Jw,q ,[ ",noIJ:;A '",U b'lI.J b..,~oqmcl" j,)3[rf'Ji' 'lrlt 1J~1V19IV'l1 9~r,:i : ~rl.; lUi ~J.d: "'~JJJ~iru:i ::~Ill ,brIll' .:;'1 frl( ,1 jr1:lH11i·:I:t qr;.-!1i:';,rn n1 ~1~1~\ I 'I9QO!!H/!:.'t. c:;!l~ "1! !'~jL-.:.1)! 31, :\;.i IJ ir;)'l' :;"'llot'jG' ,,:ttil ljn:Woril "I, iN 1':lqol'~V9U 'Hit 'l,t n',' J Jrlt ·Hwliflir .. 16r/J UII,i,: ~ ; !Is "t nc' "01)" 10 V"J VjItHj('f,r"lId ~nJ: .. n"u·"uc 'A" ~J ~ .. lJn9in'7hm-;J bn6 VJ9~&C! '1rl1 OJ 11--: .... tIi1i ~rl~ l~J) f,n~. 3~ "JI!<1 ~;';\.O;:l'lrl 'lr'O :.!bf.Ol 27'"JJG OW! Vif]O 0) b .. ,,", r,rll,l J:ftSlll!s r/liV)., :W,'IN W' VIOl;, ?". q g(:T IBriJ 'J ,j ' .. 'b b00 rhiJ.ir<,3j'.n 5rli 'to ri'iJ1 C ,,;'j r,' <'qrml.j b-.:c'W srlt n%,,', . '~',,!1 ,IUH J2 r:{, 10nlon,-, '12 no I'W611ll,w Jlll"l' \",,0 c)r",I:o '11C rl ,> ,'noil :)'11 'l'fl11:l';q~" I .Vli:> sri, lblr.WtlJ 91ummo1 ;;iq"'!>q "om f1"'V;'ltc!~· .::)J"':, :CI b'. _h \·,.Ul~ ') o1ni 'J). J ·i.)·lu,); .ttUp hn6 ~lfS~ f, t;".O)-t Jt ~ni'!;~"''-ln) ~ jC)~nt? rt~H : bnG 2:r;rlrl~i9n villi j!l9JJ21/~Vu 'J anal" gnillil'IClr Z'J.jlFv 'I: I!H:(nq (,I VllEf19Q ;:,)1", ,"1a;; {il619n::l;" 2: ')19:iT 'Id ~ ,r';1'~I: sri! at "Ji.:, IfP , .'l:W()} ';~s'Jlq .<: '01" dr!" ,)£.2' 'lb·"" .' no 9d 01 V9"'1'l11o j;)1 r. bi[,q 9VSri :;nu )~6:l1 16 ,'1,-d!!1'9' Vd 10 :n9mqnl,w r,h '9·r,·~~'J'l ~1f:"1'inElliT' sril ni Z')2Uori U'-ll vllr,Jilr,m"lb ~nlwol16 .06'11 Zit}~1D '3lt.:,' ,.r;1101 ; :l"i1~c,ri V'lli to 'lIT' vtifon ot 1<' .21n~·nmOJ 10 m,ij;9 :~ 'Ins rltiw '1in iJ .• Jnc'J 01 ~·nt /'191 ';2,;91'1 .jft 9fnqol( '~-'h tJ::Jl::'t 2 rlr:"on~Zl.'j t,"_:\.1on :J1o.rlpu n~'! 6~@d('l(: Ob 'n· \'\:, ·2~,· • ::::: =--=-?; - . ..:: i'-n ,....j ~ f~ ~ <>;' ~ .-=- s: .- :;>. ~ ~ 3lf) ::=... w t::l . ..::: ..J ~ :: ~ ::? .v, tfl "-? . ..:: a -.- ~ )-.... ~ '1} ;;;:: --0 ~ ::::- f(l Q \S ~- .-I ~ ~ 0- . .:::; Cl '" "::- -t' .~ <V ::> ~ ~. l "-t < 01 1.11 , ' ·1 ~ "3 iiI (\1 .>.~ (') (\1 \J) ..... (') ::-t-~ s:: r··· -~ I.n U LI'i ~ () 0- m ..3!. \J a:2. (Tl .., "> ~ :, .. ", e, '. ,.'. < .. ': " '.:, . ',.-. .'- -. ~ •••••• . 'benisLaw: . --.,.' ... , . ' .' ',> " " ' .. ·,Departme,n.t of Community arid Ec.onomicpevelgpme,nf .' .'" '. .': ' " ............ CE"Chip"Vin·cent,Adininis\rator:.' .,.,.: : . . . ~. .. _.' . '.' I;: . " ,., Jan:uary 16,40i~ ". '\.' ... ' . '.:.: , "' .. .', '. .' .',: Barbar~smith . '.' . ".' 3619 SEi9thCo~rt . , .... .',' ",.' , .' " " . Renton, "NA 9'8058 .. ' .. , <-_. " ,.', ' . .; , ,:, . . . ' SUBJE,cr: l "'. '. '. . ': RESERVE AT'TIFFANY,PARK COMMENT RESPONSE,LettER ..•.. LU~13-001572,PP,EC:F .. ' . '. . , . :' . .' : • . 1 '.', " : ',. ',' ...... -: :" . bear Ms. sniith: .' ":, '. ". ' .. : !'. ' ' . , .. , .... .. ; ,. "',:' . Th~n~ you fOryourcominents related to the Reserve at TiffanYPark; dated December4,.'· 2013: This letterwili be added tothepulili~red6rdfC;rconsicjeratiqhby the r,eiiie"x,ing , . .. ' qfflcial andyouhave been added asa party of ~ecord. '. , .' . ..' .. '. " ','.. " ',' '" . . ... , '.",: ... ,' 'The City is uri~bl~toprecludedevelopmenf as th~P'r~pertYiSpr;v~teIY owne,d.. . . However, to' ~ddressyourconterns theap'pl'icant will berequired to comply with the ." . City's:geveiopment regulations~swell ~swashj'~~on st~te's Eh~iro~riierit~1 Poli~y, . . (SEpA)whicb~i~clu'de~requirements fpr mitigati(:>nfor in,pacts CilUSedbythe .. " 'development.< . .... . ...•...•.. : .•........•....... :. ', ..•. ": ,.,;: '. ,' . ···.··.whil~the prdposal will~6tspetifically ber~vi~wed withrespe~tto.;mp~cts on ..... sui"r()undi;,gpr~pertyval~es the'Citywiltreview:th~p~op6s~l~ith'rE;g~rd to~he . '.' . ' .. pr'oteci:ion ofvaluableenviro~mentalariie'nities and to ens~re. fhedevelopmenf;s as'. '. '.' comp~tiblE;;as:possible with the~cological b~l~nce of the ar~a.; Thegbals6ftheCity are' '. ·topr~s~rve draHl.age patterns,protect groundWater~Lipply, pre~erit erosion andt6. '. preserve.trees aridnatunil vegetatiop. Ad~itiomilly;theapplicant'isrequiredto:: .' ... demonstrate proper provisions for 'all pub He f~c! lities(in~i Lidi ng access, ci feu labon,. . .... • .•. . . <utilitie's,and services).: . '. .:, .. " ". ..'.' ,,,.', .... '., ....... _ .. ,... ,-,'.' .:< ...... ;. ;--~ . -, . TheprojecU;asbeen placed on hold, pending tl1~receiptofa i:labitatDataReport,; . : .• "analyzingimpacts tocriticai h~bitatsfor animals 'o'~,thesite. Additionally, the'CitY has .•. , .' requested the;ipplicantpro~idean:indepehde~t secondary fe'view of.theapplicani's . " ...' ',.'..(. ' .,..... "." . -. " .. '.... . Wetland analysisand·trans·portatio'n analysisahd the effeCtil(en~ss of the proposed . .' mitigation.· '. .' .....•.. . .. . ~ .,,' .. ' -, . ;. . ~ >.' . :.It is anticip~ted that the Renton School District cali accommodate anyadditional .: ... • , students generated bythispropos~LA School I;" pact Fee,basedoQne!W'single.family .' . ,. .', ., ," . , , . '; -. '".I ' .. : . .' .. , .. ' . . ," . .... " }, .". -.'" . :' .;. --------------------------- Mrs: Smith ,Page 2 of 2 "Janu'arv'16, i014 . ," ,', " " ' "Icit, will b~ required in order to mitigate theproposal'spcitential impacts to R~nton " ' .. School Distric-t':-' . '. ",. . "'.,, -. . ,:", '-'" . You alsci voiced displeasure with the way the Rento~ School District may have handi~d ,their public pro'cess, 'Unfortunately, I am,unable to speak on the ha ndli rig oftheir " "prcicess~sitisa separat/organization, Ido;however,hope thafyou find the City of' Renton's process tcibe iridusiv,e, ' ' , ' , " .. ' , As a ;eminder, The Cityhcis plcicedtheproject on hold, and cancelJed the public ,," , hearing :oriqinally scheduledim Jariuciry23,2014, pending the receiptof additional' , .. info,';'ation by the opplicant.' , " " , .' ,-i , " " , , ','Give~ there was a ~ajorholiday during th~ initial public commentperi()d theCiiy will 'c6nductanadditional two,weekpublic c~mme~tperiod once requested materials ha~e' , beensubiriitted. Noticeofthe start oftheadditional comr'nent period afld the ,", '" r~scheduled hearingdatewill be provid~d in ,the form of: an addition a/ I~tter to all' , prope~yowners ~ithin 300 feet ofthes'ubje~t prop¢rt~; notices posted in at least three i '~onspicuous places near the property; and you will receive-(inthemail) a co~ri:esycopyo' oftheoff~holdletter provideclto theappl'icant: ' , , -_. ". " Thank yiJuforinterest in thisprojed andifyouj,avea~y further,questionspleasefeel ' free to, co'~tact me at 425-430'7219 or rtimmons@rentoriwa.gov, Thank you.' ' " ; " ," Sinc~rely"" ,,' ,,' , ~' .....•. 1£:;:~,,, ••. ~. ,-; ,,' ';~' : . ..... ',', . , ' " " '.:.; ." ". ," : :' ': ~ -' ----------------------------------------- • • December 4,2013 R. Timmons, Senior Planner,. Plan.ning Division, City of Renton ..... -_.......... . ...• ) Re: JiffailY Park./leserv.e. Development ( '. ". ~' .. I live in the area that will be impacted by this development .. Given what us homeowners have been through to this point, I find it highly unlikely that ANYONE would ever listen to us but since this is the only forum there is to express our American God given right, here I am ..... I have lived in my home for 33 years. The woods that I have enjoyed all these years have been sold by the school district (for which a developer was already in the wings if you look at the date the district first decided to sell the property, the date the preliminary plat was filed, etc ..... ) And the recent letter sent out told us there would be a public hearing on 1/23 at lOam. Those of us that work Mon -Fri cannot attend this scheduled hearing. Sadly. Developing that land to the extent that is planned is going to impact our values. The housing market has not rebounded to a degree that we can afford to take a hit for lOSing the benefit of those woods for those of us that live on the greenbelt. Each and every day I look out there, walk out there and see all the wildlife that lives there -it is absolutely heartbreaking that all that life is being displaced. Where will that wildlife go? And the.n where will the vermin go? Them leaving does not break my heart but they will be forced towards our homes ......... and what about all the trees that will have to come down and all the wetlands areas that are not showing on your map (the soil study done in July of 2012 was done after it had not rained for 45 days} ......... As old as some of those trees are, there is going to be an impact for those of us that have trees along the other side of the greenbelt. Do you have any idea how far those tree roots travel for trees that are that high? Trust me -I do -I had to replace my water line because of them. Cutting those trees down is going to be killing the trees on our property due to the root system and that leaves our property susceptible to damage. ' Has anyone considered traffic? Do you realize what is going to happen to the traffic around here? Our streets up here are small as it is and with the number of homes that are planned, there will be a very negative impact on the traffic increase, street parking ......... too many homes, too large of homes all brings far too much traffic to absorb up here. There is no room in the neighborhood schools for more students .......... at the November meeting, a school district rep (John Knutson) stated students would have to be bussed out of the area to accommodate any increase in the student population. Am I the only one that does not make sense to? Granted I no longer have school age kids, but were I parent of a school age child, I would have a big issue with that. • • I am opposed to every aspect of this development due to the impacts it will have on all those things mentioned above. It's just too much and somewhere along the line all this developing of raw, beautiful, bountiful, fruitful and perfectly pristine land has got to stop. There is clearly nothing that is going to stop this development. It will likely happen no matter what we say or do. Been there and done that with the school district last year and I'm clearly still bitter about that. With that said, the trees that are directly on the greenbelts need to be retained with some sort of a buffer. This needs to be done to protect the current homeowners' views, way of life, etc ..... as well as giving the "new" homeowners some semblance of the neighborhood they are invading. I doubt they want to look out their window and see us anymore than we want to see them. The prospect of having to keep my blinds closed does not appeal to me and I doubt it would appeal to any of you either. That is the least the developer can do for taking away what has been a very significant part of our lives. ~LffU.---./ (~U~b1th0 >41'7Vv-t k.J 2:U {q :Sf Iq+h {!.-f Min toY! lulU q ~D51 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Rocale Timmons .Monday, December 02, 2013 10:22 AM 'Barbi Smith' • Cc: Subject: Wayne Potter (wpotter@novastardev.com); Barbara Yarington (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park Hello Mrs. Smith, Thank you for your email wherein you have raised concerns with respect to the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA13-001572). This email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official. I will address your concerns as they have been raised. You voiced a displeasure with the way the Renton School District may have handled their public process. Unfortunately, I am unable to speak on the handling of their process as it is a separate organization. I dO,however, hope that you find the City of Renton's process to be inclusive. The scheduling of the public hearing for January 23" at 10:00 am is not being done with the intention of precluding those who work from providing input. All City land use application hearings are held during the City business hours of 8:00 am -5:00 pm. I apologize if this is an inconvenience to your schedule. If you are unable to attend your concerns can still be presented before the City's Hearing Examiner via letter. I would encourage you to articulate your specific concerns in writing so that they are added to the public record and presented at the public hearing. Please feel free to contact me should you have any other questions or if would like to elaborate on your concerns. Also, if you would like to be added as a 'party of record, and receive any future correspondence related to the application please provide your mailing address. Again, thank you for your input. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -·Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov From: Barbi Smith [mailto:barbiandlance@live.com) Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 1:55 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Fw: Reserve at Tiffany Park From: barbiandlance@live.com. sent: Sunday, December 01,2013 .1:49 PM .. To: . rtimmons@renton,wa.gov; wpotter@lnovastardev.com Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park 1 I am in receipt of the letter sent tJmpacted homeowners and sent it baC~qUesting additional information on this project as it develops. I attended the school district meetings when they put up and ultimately sold the property to a developer. Clearly that was all for naught because 4 months after they had voted to sell the property they had the meetings with homeowners who were clearly against the sale. These meetings were held in November of 2012 and we found out in July of 2012 a preliminary plat had already been filed for the property. The school district was just giving lip service to the homeowners -they had no intention of taking anything we had said taken seriously. The letter sent to us indicated comments need to be made soon and that a meeting is scheduled for Jan 23rd at lOam. AT lOAM? SO IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HIS MEETING IS SET FOR A TIME WHEN THOSE OF US THAT WORK MONDAY THRU FRIDAY DURING DAYTIME HOURS WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND!!!!!! REALLY????? So first the school district lies to us and then the city sets the meeting for a time when he majority of us cannot attend? I have lived in my home here for 33 years to be treated like this??? Can someone explain why the lOam time on 1/23 was set? Much appreciated, Barbara Smith, VERY AFFECTED HOMEOWNER 2 . -,~, . . ," Denis Law •••••• _.M,ayor .. ' Januaiy1,6,2014 .•. '. Deparil11entofCommunity ilrid Eco~OrriiCD~veI6pment .' :-.. " ' . .' .' . ·;:.E:iChip"VihcentiAdministrato"r . · '.' .. '. ' " " --, '. Greg ~nd Jennysw~nson . ".1819 Fernadale Ave SE , ,.' ," ' ',.. , '.' ' · Renton, WA 98058" ", .. , ., , : . SUBJECT: . RESERVE AT TlFFcANVPARK COMI\IIENT,REsPONSElETTE~ .. 'lUA1.3.001572, PP,:ECF ". " .' Dear Mr.and M~~, ~~an~on: "', .... . .... " " · 'Thank youforyourcommellts. related to theReserve at Tif't~ny Park; dated December 2, '.' . 2013, This 'letter will beadd~d to the public record for consideration by the reviewing.·· ,. , 'officialandyou have heenadded asa p~rty oh~c6rd,. . .' .' . '. , , .' . " HoweVer,toaddress.yourconcerns the applicantwill be required tirco~pIYWit~th~ City's develop'ment :regulati~ns aswell a~ Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) ;""hi~hinclud~s requir~ments for mitigati~nfor impactscatlsed by the "~evelopm~n,t, . . .', . . '. . . . .. ',' , .. The.City wi II review the pro posa I wlthregardto .the p ietection' of va I u.ab I,e · 'environmental amenities ~nd t~en~u~e the development is as compatil;>l~ as possible ' .. · ,with the ecological balance ofthe area, The goalsofthe City'are to preserve drainage patterns, pr6tectgro~ndw~tersupply,preve;'ter~Sioli and tq p~eservetree;;al)d ." 'naturalveg'etation'-Additicinaily; tile applicant is. requiredio. demonstrate pro'per' provisions for all publiC facilities(indudingac~ess, ci~culati6n, utilities, and services), ..... . . " ' ' The p~Oj~tt has been placed ol1hold,pendingthe re~~ipt 6faHabii:at Data Report" '. analyzingimpactsto critical habitats for animals on the site, Additionally, the'City has · requestedtheapplic'aritproviae an iridependentsecondary review,of the applicant's '. :wetla'nd arialysisand,i:r~nsportation analysis aridtheeffectiVenessoft~e proposed ' . mitigation, " · As rireminder, TheCitt/ has placed the pi'ojettonhold, and cancelled the public . hearingodqinaliysch'eduled on January 23, 2014, pending the receipt of additional · Inforniation by the applicant. . .' ... .. . · Given1:her~ was a ri1~jcir .holiday auring the initial public~omment period the City will ..... conduct an additional t~o-week pUblic.comment periodonc~ ~equested ,;;"ateri~lshilVe . been' submitt~d" Notice Of the start cif tli~ additional~cimmentpE!riodandthe , '., ;' ~,: Renton City Hall. '. 1055 South Grady Way ~ Rent6h,Washington'98057 • rentonwa·.g'ov -'.--.. ',-'.'. -. . ~ .' " ~ .. : :.'" . . ,',' . :. ... . ' M;, and Mrs," ~~anson. ' . .. ... Page 2 012 '. . .January16,2014 .' , rescheduled, hearing date will be provided i~ the fo~~ of: an additional letter to 'ali p'roperty owners within 300 feetofthesubj~ctproperty;n6ticesposted in at leastthree conspicuous places near the property; andvou will receive (inthe mail) a courtesy copy,· of the off-ho'idietter provided to theapplicant~ '. .' , rhankyou for iilterest.in this projectand'if you havea~y fwther questions please feel :, ,free to contactme at 425-'430-7219 or rtirilmons@reritonwa,gov. Thank you.: •. •• " :: ' '. • .' : ...:....," , ~' • '., • • , " ,,'. "". • ',' <" ,.' , . Sincerely;... '.' '~':'~'" "".' .. ............. ~' oc Ie Ti~ '.', ....... ' '" .' ,.". . . , Se . 6rPlannei' '.... . .' '. ',' .. " . '. " ", . ; ;." . , ,- 1819 Ferndale Ave SE Renton, WA 98058, December 2, 2013 Rocale Timmons Senior Planner Oi ty of Renton 1055 South Grady lvay Renton, ',vA 98057 Dear Ms. Timmons, t Please consider the following comments regarding th'e ·Reser~e at Tif'f'any Park" development (LUA13-001 572 , EOF, pp): \ve appreciate the passages enabling pedestrisn access between houses to. the pipeline right-of-,way along the east edge of the development. Many current residents walk or jog along that right-qf-way. It is to the benefit of a 11 to have "good guys" out there to discourage vandalism. Some of the ~oc81 pipeline right-of-ways are just fenced corridors and those fences are covered with graf'f'iti and shed/garage windows are often broken. Right-of-ways with softer edges -that is, fence lines 1<ith native plant ,boundaries outside the fence both look better and suffer less damage. A good example of such planting is the e'astern half mile of Puget Dr SE as well as the' water tower at Puget Dr SE and Edmonda Ave SE. Little maintenance is required, the property looks nice and attracts little attention from hoodlums. Perhaps tha "Reserve" would benefit from such a soft edge along ita eastern boundary. Thank you for your attention, ~ ~ q~MUf; duMtMnJ Greg & Jenny Swanson -' , i ,--------------------------------- " Denis Law' ,Mayoc' . Depa·~t~erit of com';'unity.and'Economic DevelOpment '.' C.E:'Chip"Vincen,t, Administrator. Lee & Adrierine Lawrence .1721 Pierce Ave SE. .' .Renton, W.A.98058 . ~ .' ,." . 5UBJE(:T: R~SERVEAT TI~FAN~PARK COM~ENTRESPONSE LEITER " . LUA13~obi572, PP; ECF . . ' . '.. .. . , .. . ',,- · Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence:: , Thank you for your comrhentsrelat~d to the Reserve atTiffany Park; dated Deceniber9,. '2oi3 and December 10, 2013 (~mail and letter), Your com"';erits willbeadded to the 'publicrE;cordforcon~ider~tion by the reviewing Offidaland you.have been added asa · party 6frE!cord. . , . . ' '. .. , . '. ' , ~ . . . . . . \ · Publici:Orhme~'i \vas requested appropriately by iheCity' usiri g the foilowing"';eas~re~ ..... . ", per code:(a)ariotice board ontliesite, (b) anciticei~ a' newspaper of gen'erallocal' ... . . . Circulation,ahd(c)writte~ noti~eis mailed toall propertyowner~within three,hundred . feet (300') of the subject property. A 14-d~ycomment period (riot limited to business .. " · days)is.provided.Ohce the City issues aSEPA'Thteshold Determination,following the comment period, then the City holds a 14-day appeal period: .. ' . .Howeverigi~ej, the f~ct that there was Holiday during the comment period 'and th'e ~ensitivenature ofth~ project theCity hasd~i:ided: to extend the comment period . . The CitY has placed the project on hold Pending the receipt ofadditional information -by .'. i:h'e~'pplic1mt. Oncethe:request~d material~ have been submitted tbtheCityWil1 '. conductanadditi~naltwo-weekpubliccomment pe~i9d.· . .' Notice of the start ofthe additional comnientperiod, and the, new tentative treating' ',date,andtime, will be providedinthe form of:anadditi6rialletter to all property owners within 300 feet ofthe subject property; small pihk hoticesposted in at lea~t . threeconspic~ous places near the property; and/or you will receive'{inthemail) a ,. , .cour:i:esyC:opy of the off-hold letter provided to the applicarit... . ' . . .'.' ' , -'" ' .:\ It should also b{notedthatthePubli~ Hearing, which was tentatively scheduled on'. January 23, 2014, has been cancelled aniJ will be'rescheduled once the reguested·, · supplemental materials have.been re'ceived.The scheduiing oft~e public hearing at 10:00 amis n6tb'eingdone with the intention of-precluding thos,e who workfrbm < -' prdviding input. All City land usei,~pplication hearings areheldqu'ring'Cit:ybusiness ' . . ' hoursof8:00 am -5:00P'm. I apologize ifthis is an inconvenience to your schedule. If Renton City Hall • 1 OS;South Grady wa~ .Rent~n, Washington 98057, rentonVlia.gov , . ' t': .. , . Mr. and Mrs: Lawrence ". Page 2 of 2 January16,2014. . " \, . " ,. you are unable to attend your,concerns~anstill be presented, before the,City\ Hearing' "Examinervialette'r.'· " . .' . .-'. , · To address,your concerns the applica~twillbe'requiredto comply with the City's' ..• · development regulations as well as Washington'State's Envir6nmentaiPolicy (SEPA) .. " 'which include requirements,for mitigation for impact5'caus~d by the dev~lopment, l:he:' 'City will review the proposal with regard to. the'pro,tectionofvaluabie e:~vironmental ' amenities 'many of which'you mentioned in your letter,Wev;'illbew'orkingtoensure the development is as compatible as possible with theecoiogical balance'ofthe area. · . 'The goals of the City areto pres~r)le drainage p~tter!1s,pr6tect g~oundwatersupply, ' . prey~nterosion and to p~eserve trees and natLlral vegetation. Additi.onally; the . applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions'for all public facilities (inclu'ding vehicular access, p'edestriancirculation,utiiities, and servicesi. .... ." . .' . . " . ' " ,-: .',... .'" . ';' The Cityha.s solicited comments from theRentonSchool DistriCt abouttheir ability to . , ... accommodate any additional stud~ritsgeneratedby this 'proposal. A School Impact Fee, . · . 'based on neW singlecfamily lots, ""ill Jikely be required in order to mitigate the " · .• proposal's P9tential impai:ts to Renton School Qi~trict. please note thatthe applicant is . notproj:JOsing a stormwater vaultbu.t a storniwater detention pond. It is unclear why' 'you oppos'e the stormwaterdeteritionarea~. . .. . .-.' ' The applicant has~lsoprovided Wetland,Arborist, 'Transportation, Geotechnical/Soils, . and Drainage'analysis;and pote~tialmitigatic>n,preparedby ceriifiedprofessionals. The·'· '. City is happyt~provide ~ccess,t~ 'the fiie/r~ports forvie~ing and copying (at $0.15 per, . page): 'If you are interested .in viewing the fiieyou ilrEiableto come to tlie frontdesk, on the 6th floor~fCity Hall, between'the hqurs 8:00 am and 5:00'pm and r~quest the file. I · am also 'able to forward plilns/reportsvia email if you would like please 'just let me .' know." ' .. '. ' Theprojecth~sqeen placedon hold,' pending the 'r~c~iptofaHabit~tDataReport, • anaiyzingimpacts tocritkalhabitats for animalso~ the site,Adaitiona'lIy, th~'Cityhas " ' .... requested theapplic~nt provide anindependentsec\lndarneviewoftheapplic~nt's . · '. wetland analysis and transportation analysis and the effectiveness of i:he proposed' mitigation,' , .... '.... . . . . .' Thankyou for interest in this project and ifyouhaveany{urth~r questions pleaseJeel '. · free to c6nt~ctmeat42S-430-7ii9 ~r rtimrno~s@rentonwa.gov. Thank you; .' ' .. '. Sincerely, " .... ' .. '.' .' ..... . t!1C;;i~~' '~~~r'Plarin~r, ....•... '. . ..•... . . ', , '.' , lee & Adrienne lawrence 1721 Pierce Avenue S.E. Renton, WA Tel. 425-277-1302 City of Renton • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner CEO -Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve/lUA13-001572 ECF, PP Mr.(s) Timmons: • RECEIVED DEC 09 2013 C:rv OF RENTON LANNING DIVISION Lee and I would like to start out by requesting that you extend the deadline for comments on this Project by three days, as we did not receive your notification until November 29'". Your notice is dated November 26, a Tuesday before the Thanksgiving Holiday and it should have been apparent that the recipients would not receive the notice three days after it was dated. By extending the date, it allows the affected residents to make comments on this important issue that affects all of us in this area. The following are our concerns along with others about the development as it is proposed: The impact of the proposed development will have a negative impact on all residences surrounding it dueto 1) Increased traffic 2) loss of a buffer the current woods provide 3) Increase in students for the already filled to capacity schools 4) Noise during construction The impact to the environment is also significant, as there are wetlands, old growth and various wildlife in these woods. In my opinion, the wetlands are larger than the developer has outlined. We challenge the classification of those wetlands. We request that an assessment by an independent agency be performed as to the amount, size and classification of those wetlands. We oppose the storm water detention vault. There are several old growth trees in these woods and they should be preserved. We request an independent study of the trees. We also dispute the number of trees quoted in your notice. I ~. '~ , • • There is a considerable amount of wildlife in these woods, i.e. deer, bobcats, mountain beavers, pileated woodpeckers, hawks and more. We request an explanation on what Is planned for the displaced wildlife. Furthermore, we also request that no trees be cut during nesting season. What is the Cltv of Renton planning to do about the displaced rat population? They will all migrate to the neighboring properties. Are there mines under this property and if so, what impacts will that have? We request that the developer leave a buffer of trees that are already lining the Mercer Island Pipeline- this would provide a visual buffer for the existing houses east of that pipeline. We challenge and oppose the proposed access extended from 124'h Place S.E., crOSSing the Cedar River Pipeline. This access would increase traffic in an established neighborhood and would require the cutting of several beautiful old trees. We believe that the studies provided by the developer are outdated and incorrect as the last wetland study was done after 2 months of draught. I request a copy of all the studies. We challenge the City of Renton's statement that this development will not have a significant . environmental impact. This development will have a huge impact on the environment and the neighbors surrounding the woods. Many of us have purchased our homes because of the woods and the buffer they provide from other neighborhoods. This development will reduce the value of our homes and the quality of our lives. I request that the city of Renton deny this development or at least reduce the amount of houses to be built. I request that you change the time of the public hearing on January 23" from 10 am to a time after 4 pm so everyone can attend; the decisions being made will affect our homes, our neighborhood and lives in general-so a schedule should be set so that those of us that work can also attend. Respectfully Submitted, ~ @) !li2deJuu'! fili'NHt!J/ce Lee & Adrienne Lawrence '. I . I I ! . .1 } --. r, , 111 iiI (\1 (') (\, ('I r'" III (j (I) (J\ Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello, ---------~~---------- • Adrienne Lawrence <varettal@comcast.net> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:33 PM Rocale Timmons varettal@comcast.net Concrete Wall barrier in Greenbelt Area High Follow up Flagged v • My name is Adrienne Lawrence and I sent a letter previously regarding the changes being proposed in the Tiffany Park Area. I have owned my home for over 33 years, purchased before my home was even built and had the opportunity to change my house plans. When my house was being sold by the builder in 1980, the information that was included referenced the greenbelt behind the homes in this area and the back of my home directly faces across from the greenbelt. When I sit on my deck or have friends and family over, the greenbelt is beautiful greenery with trees that lends a semblance of tranquility in our neighborhood. Most of our children have grown up playing in this area as well; it would be quite devastating to lose this view and on top of that having to swallow the insult of seeing the value of our property decrease. I wonder what this builder would think if a builder was coming into his neighborhood and bringing upheaval and destruction. I just found out that the builder is proposing putting up a concrete wall, which when I sit out on my deck is what I will be seeing each and every time. Again, who would want to purchase a home with a view of a concrete wall? I urge you to not allow this to happen in our neighborhood ... my husband, Lee and I are very much against this concrete wall barrier that is being proposed leave things as they are. I urge you to listen to those of us that have a stake in this upheaval. Thank you for your consideration in reference to this issue. Sincerely, Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, Wa 98058 1 -". '" ' ,"-' . .... ' .. _.' ., .. ' ;,.'.', . .. : ... . ' .DenisLaw··.···· . ~ayor· ' .. : ; .. -. " ... '., '.' '. '. , ~'. . ,.' ' .. '-'. :-' .~ .:.,' _.' . . Departmeni6f l:~mri1Unity anifE(Qndmic Development: ....... " . . . ...• ". CE.:~Chip':Vincent,Adrni~istrator '. , . . . ' . ... '; )' .- .... ' . . : ....... -. -.' . jariuary 16; 2014'. -'..... ';:. " '. ',-. . ; . .' , . : , . ' . e·.,·; '.' . .. . '" .',-. ,'.: ' I • " .J" , Frisch Family .... / .. ' . ': "'.-..... 171iPi~rceAve SE .. '. ·.··Renton;WA9l3058·.' '" "-: . ... ; ..... .' -., , -." .. '. :.-' :,' ". i ':'., ..... .. ,,, . '. :. S·UBJECT: .RESERYE ATmi:A~YPARKSOMI)IIENTRESPONSElEtrER: _ . " LUA13.001572, pp,E9F .. .. '" .'. ~. Dear FriscbFamiIY:;· .. ... ,. '.' .' .. "" '. -,,' " ',', , .. ,-. ; " , " . ' . ,-,'. . ... , . Thankyouforyourccimmentsrelateq to the Reserve atTiffany Park; dated Qecerriber9; .' 2013.This letterwill be ilddedto the.public n;cordforconsideration bythereviewing.· . , .. , .. officiala~dyouhav'el:J~en added as a'pa'rty Of'r,ecord:';' ','., . " .' . . . c· ". : " -.. ',-" -'" .' . ., .... ,.,. -.' (' -' -; . -" : ,,' .-.' -" . , 'The City.isunable toprecludedevelopri)ent, or requixe the. property De preserved as a.... " ' •.... park; asit is privatel'{o~ned. However, :toaddressyour concemstheapplicant'will be .' .• ·.'requir~d tbcompiywith the City'sdeveI6pment'.regulationsaswelia~ Washtngton.: . '., State'; En~;'ron,;,en'taIPolicy (SEPA)lNhiCh iri~ludesrequiren;entsfor ~itigation for' . impacts caused by the developrri~~t' '.' .... c .. · .,.... •... .. , .. ' .-,". " . While the proPOSal.~iU not specificall~~be reJielNe'dwith re~pect to impacts on' ". ..,' : surrounding property values theCityw'ill review thepropo;aliNith regard to the' . ,'.' . ··p~oteGtion of.valuabl~environrriental artienities and to:ensurethedevelopme,;'tisas " . " . cdinpatible as possible withthe~cologicalbalance of the area: The goalsoftHe City are: '.' to p'reservediainage,patfer~s,prote.ctgn:iund~ater supply,' prevent erOsion. andto • preserve trees and naturai vegetatibn.Additionally,'the applicant isreq~irecl\ci ' ... ' , . .. ·.dei:nohstrate proper provisionsJor~lIpubficfacilities.(including access, Circulation, .. ' ", .. '- . ... ; . ,:.,' . ... ; .. ' utilities, ~rid services),' '.' ...,,' '.' '.' ......... . " ... ',; . .... ~-. "-. "Theprojecthas beenplacea on hcila,pehdingthe receipt ofa HabitafDat~Repo'rt, .' analyzing impactstocriticalhalJitats foi 'animals onthe site .. Additionally,theCity has requestedth~.applicant provide anindepenqent secondary re~.iew oftheapplicant's •. ' .. ' ;\,Vetla ndana lysis~lld transportation' an aly~is andtli eeffei:tiveness ofth~' proposed, '.' 'mitigation, .' '. ...., ... ', ."~'., .', ~ . , ,-. , :. ; ' ... ,. ". Re~tQ;' Cit;H~II·.165S SQuthG;adyway. i~Re~ion, washingt~n, ~86s7. r~ntonwa:go~ '.' . .' . -~.. . ". . . ," . : .'. ' :'.\' . .. -. , ',' ,: . ' . ., .. . " , '. 1" Frisch Family , • . Page 2 of 2 . -. -Januar/16; 2014 -,. Asa reminder, The City bas p/~cedtheljroiect-on h~/d, and cancelled the public . hearing originallY scheduled oil January 23, 2014, pending. the receipt of additional • . '·,information by the applicant:·· -, {, . .' f ," ' , • Gi"en therewa~ a~ajor hoUdayduringtheinitialpubliC comment period the City will conduct' an additional two'week puplic comment ~eriod9rice requested materials have _ -been· sub'mitted,· Notice·' of, the start ,of tHe additional·· comment, .. period and the rescheduled heariilg'date will be providep in_ the. form of: anadditi~nal lett~r to all .. pr;pertyO\~mers within 300 feet ofthesubject property; rloticesposted inat least thre~ . conspicuous places nearthe property; and you will. receive (in the'rTlailj .. ~ court~sy copy' oftheoffchold letterpro~idedto the applicant: -,. '., .. , . - , :, , ,. Thank yo'ufo/interestin this project _~nd if you have~riy further questions please feel, - free to -contact. me at -425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa,gov. Thank you. .,' , ., ", ' , '.' ,. " " ' .'§Sincer~eIY' .• ~ oc Ie Tim' . Se or Planner , , . " , ,.; , ' .. :, ' . ,', ,." ','" .' , ~, '. , . ,I" '" ' " ",', :" .. ' , ,". , ' ' . ' • To: Timmons, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 Grady Way Renton 98057 e .. Reference plat # 2123059061,2123059051, and 2123059044 Dear Senior Planner: I would like to go on record as being opposed to the development of the Tiffany Park Reserve as currently planned. The cutting of the woods, grading of the land, building of roads, utilities and residences would have a negative impact on wildlife, the environment, property values, neighbors and the citizens of Renton. Some, but not all, of the negative aspects are listed here: 1. Reduction of wildlife habitat. These woods are home to Bobcats, many birds including owls and the occasional eagle, deer, raccoons and others. The development would reduce or eliminate their presence. It could also result in an increase certain pests such as rats and mice in the area as a result of the reduction in predators. 2. Impact to the environment by the removal of trees. Taking down 21 acres of forest would reduce the production of oxygen and the consumption of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The wetlands would be affected, even if buffered, by the change in water flows from grading the land and the introduction of impermeable surfaces. And pollution of the air and water would increase. 3. Reduction of property values. The development of the site would reduce the value of the surrounding residences in several ways. The view from each house would go from one of peaceful nature to rows of closely spaced houses and fences. The noise levels would increase with all the additional dogs, cars and yard maintenance. The general traffic level would increase, and the houses on the two entrance roads would see a large increase. 4. Reduction of the quality of living here. The presence of the woods provides a great amount of pleasure to the people that live next to them. Even people that are not direct neighbors benefit by having a nice place to walk and play. The site serves as a kind of undeveloped park for the area. 5. Possible damage to surrounding properties. The woods on the site serve as a windbreak for a large number of surrounding properties. A lot of these properties have a significant number of large trees on them. Removal of the "1~('~\VED DEL 0 9 2013 CIYV 0:: f,,12N'l"QN PLANNING DIVISION < .. , • expose tress to more wind during storms, which may lead to property damage from falling trees. I submit that there has not been enough study and evaluation of the sale of the property and the development plan. I would like to see alternative uses for the property proposed and evaluated. My proposal would be to keep it as an undeveloped park owned by the city and kept as a refuge for wildlife and recreation. Thank you for your consideration. Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 425-228-2346 • ';' Ul 111 (\1 (V) (II (q 1'- 111 o m <n 'i "', . '",.- "',' '. .' DenisLaw, , Mayor,' , ", ". " :.' :., ' " DepartnientofCommunity and Economic Devel~pment ' , ,'" " C.E,"Chip"Vincent,A'dininistratbr,' " )al']uary.16,2014 " '~ ," . :, ,',Anthony. and Margarid'Dean' ' 16917114th AiteSE " , Renton,WA980SS ' -, '- SUBJECT: , , RESERVE AT TIFFANY,PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER' ; UJA13-0ofsn;pP,ECF,' -," '.D.earMr, arid Mrs.6~ijri:, eTha'ilk you for your cOrTliTIentsrelated tottieReserv~aniffany Park; dated D~cembers, ' '20nwherein you rE!Guested the City to consider acce~s constr'airitsand imp'aCts to'" ,:existing animal habitat and trees'on theTiffimYPa'rk Reservesi'te"Youha~~'requested,' ,thattheCitysetasidethe parcel as a Nature Reserve: : " " ". "The, City is unabIetopr~clude developmentasthe p~operi:y is privately owned, How~iter, to address yoiJr concerlisthe applicant wiil ber~quired to corriplywith the City's developmenf regulatibn as well as Wa~hington'State's Enitiroriment~1 Policy: '. ,(SEPA) whiCh includerequlrements for rriitigatidnfor impacts ~aused by the ' d~velopment. " -, ' . '" , , The City will ieViewtheproposal with regardtothe protection Oaf valuable', :", envirbnrTlental ameriitiesmanyof which youme'ntioned,in'your letter: We will be , working to ensure th~ deitelopmentisas compatible as possible; with the:ecological"," balance,of 1:hear'e~: The goals of the City are ~o preServi!drainage p~tterns,proteCt ' grciuridwatersupply,pr~Vent erosion and to preservetr~es andnatural,vegetiltion., Additi~nally,the applicant is ~equireci to demonstrate proper provisions for all public' facilities (including vehicular access, ped~s1:iianctrtulation! utilities,and servicesh " , .-<..- The applicant h~s~lso providedWetlarid, Arborist,Tr~nsportation, Ge~tec!1iiicaI/Soil.s, 'and Drainage analysis; andpotentiai mitigation~ prepared by certified professionals. The ',' City is happy to provide access to the file/reports for \(iewingand c~pying (at $0:15 per " '",' page).;lfyouareinterested,inviewingthidileyou are able to cometothefront desk,on. , the 6th floor of Cit/Hall, between i:hehours 8:00ama'nd 5:do'pm'andrequest the file, i am also able to forward plans/reports~iaemail if you would like pleas~justletme '" know. , ' Renton City Hall.", 055 South Grady Way,;, Reriion, Washington 980S7 • rentonwa,gov .. -, " . " , ty1r: and Mrs.:Dean " .. ' ...... Page 2 of 2 ~anuary 16, i6~.4 'Theprojecfhas been placed on nold,p'ending the receipt of a Habitat DataReport~ , arialyzingimpactsto.critic~1 habitats fo~ animals on the site. Additionally, the City h~s ... ' re'que~ted the applicant provide an iridepende~tsecondary revieW of the applicant'~ '. wetland analysis and transportation analysis and theeffllctiveness of the proposed ' , 'mitigation: ',,' , . '. '. , As a reminder, the City hasplac~d the proiect on hold, arid cancelled the public hearing oriqfnallyscheduled on january 23,' 2014; pending the ;eceipt,of additional ,'information by the applicant. ,," , , <: '. Thank you for inte~est in ,this project and if you have any further que~tionsplease feel' free to contact me at 425"430-7219.or rtimmons@rentonwa.gQv .. Thankyou. • ' :1 . . . ," " . . '~. S;"'''~:'A'J~ ,,' OCI~'<' ," ,,' , ". Se or'Planner :"" •. .,' " " ", . '~'. . " .' '.' ' , " :' .' .... ' ,>'" ' . .' . ------------------------- ., City of Renton Mr. Timmons, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 Grady Way Renton, W A 9057 • Anthony & Margaret Dean 16917 114th Ave. SE Renton, W A 98055 December 5, 2013 Re: Development of plat #2123059061, 2123059051 and 2123059044 Dear Senior Planner: RECEIVED DEC 092013 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION We are writing regarding the proposed development of the three above plats in the Tiffany Park woods. We are joining the neighbors in that area in opposing this development, even though we do not live in that immediate area. We have many reasons. We have walked the trails and woods for many years. I will list some of our concerns. We live in the "old" part of 1 14th Ave SE, have lived here for well over 20 years. There used to be a few acres of woods at the south end of our road and we had walked our dogs through there many times. It was always wet, as a natural stream ran between our road and 1 16 th Ave SE. Our neighbors, on two occasions, fought builders who wanted to build there and when they discovered the running water they "went away." However, as you probably know, 10 years ago we lost"our fight, even though the man who was testing the soil told me that it was the worst building site he had ever tested. It was in the days of King County, and we do not believe the King Co. planner ever walked the land. Maybe some considerations were made by the builder, and it was a done deal. We now have 40 plus town houses down the road, which was built so narrow that there is no roadside parking allowed down there. Our end of the road is a little wider so when people have a party they all park on our end. With the 40 pius houses and only one way out, you can imagine the traffic flow. As there is su"ch limited access to the above pianned development, I can see this happening there. Now we get to the environmental impact. All the City can see is more houses, bringing in more taxes. However, you cannot keep on clearing woodlands in this manner. Out of one side of your mouths you say you are for preserving the environment, and out of the other you hand out building permits that should never be given. Believe me, there will be an enormous erivironmental impact. We, in this area, lost frogs, bats, quail, owls, swallows, ducks and geese, not to mention many beautiful old trees, native shrubs and brush that was home to multiple woodpeckers, wrens and so many other birds. . , May we respectfully suggest that the City set ~ide this parcel of land as a Nature Reserve for future generations who Will then be able to hear the bullfrogs,"watch the woodpeckers make a nest, and so much more. . ".' ,; . ' . , Sincerely, -U-. ----.-------------------------------------~ Mr. & Mrs. A Den 16917114th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 • .. • 7:?" " SE.A rr lE 'Nl!~sr:::>') 06 DEC 2013 P}.1 )' l City of Renton Mr. Timmons, Senior Planner Planning Division lOSS Grady Way Renton, WA 90S7 98Ci57323255 II h Iii i"i I' ii ,Ii 1"'11111 I II lilil}, I, i 'II, ii"i i I} I II Iii "1"11 . " ...... " .• ' ... ',' .... -, ... , " " " ,': Mayor " , ., " " , '.,' " .< ...•. '; '. Depart;"ent of Community and Econoniii::De~elop,;,~nt . ",,' '."" c.E."cti'ip"Vincent,Ad!ninistrator. . ':.,., " >",: ~ " , -:' ", , .' January 16, ,i014 " -. ,', ", .,' ",. ;, "-. ,'" .. : : ",' . :',',. Rosem~~yQ~~senberry, '.' .. ', ,. th ' 3609 SEt8 Ct .. '. ' ' Renton,WA 98058 .. ,'., ' . , .:. , w', ,. " . .. ,: .... :. . , , ", , : .. ,,..': .,'-: , -' "'" . '.: .. SU'SJEcT: ~', RESERVE A~ tiFFANY PA.RK CQIVIIVlENTRESi>QNSE LETTER. '., ;" ': " . ,.' , . :·"li.JAt~-0015'7i,'.PP/EC~ .'" .".".,' ,':. ,::', "1 ' • '. _' .. ' '-, '. , , : ';' ,,' , .,.'. , '. ',.:' ~:. , :~'," ";. .. ,,' ' "," . '". ' Thank y6u for your commentsn;latedto;theReserve at.TiffanyPark; dated December 9; ' .. 201} wherein you r~i~edconcerns~boutinipai:ts caus~d by' the proposed project, .... . ",: ~. , '. .' .'. :. TO~ddres; ~ourcon~e';nsthe~pPlkant \Viil~ir~~qU'ired:o ~i~PIY·\Vith'~he ~ity'~ . ;.' .,' ... ": developmeht(egulatlons as weI! <3sWashington State'sErivironrnentaIPollcy(SEPA) : .', , .. " whichin'c!udesrequireilients for initigatiorrforimpacts c~used by the development,' ".;' . .' -',' .. ,.' ',', " , .:',' ' , .; . -.1,' . -. , ~ ',' " The'City willreviewth~proposal )Nith'regardt~ttieprote~i.ioh of valuable' ' ..... '... ' . ' ..• "', ; ii1vironm~htal ameniti~smanyofwhictiyo~ m~ntioned in your letter, We~illbe'·'· ". ·.workirigtoeflsure·thed~velopmentis;ascompatibleas possible with the ~cological ". balance of th\!area~i:he goals of the city are to preserve draihage pa'tt~~ns>protect' : .... ' .. ·grouild""'~ter supply, prevent~r(isio';and topreser~e trees andna~ural~egetatiori, .• ' ... ' . . ' Acjditionally, the applica~t i~ requirecLtoderrionstrate p(oper provisiol)sforall public, faciHtie~(induding vehicular access; pede;trlan clrculatiori, :~tiliti'es, and se~vicesj. '.' .', . -,,',.' -_':', > • , • I' ' , : '., ,:' '" '. ' .,' ' .' '.~' , " . , .:,' "'Theap-plica~tliasprbvid~d aWetland:Delineatiori prepiired by a certifiedWetland', '", . " .-"'-',. '.,: ' ..•. "Ecoiogist:.The a'ppHcahthas~l$o provi'ded an Arbori~t'Trarispcirtatiori; Geotechrii~al, i, and[)r~i~age analysis~'ndp()tentialmitigation al~o prepared .by·c~rtified'professionals: .. • . ·~Tlie City i~happyto pr6~ideacc¢ss 'to the file/reports fo; viewingandc6pying (a'd0:1S · . per'page).lf yo'u~reint~rested invi~wirig the. file you ani abie to :co;;;e to the fro'nt·· . desk,on tlie6tti flo6rof City Hall;'between thehours.8!DO am and s:oo pma~dr~quest - ....... thefil~, I ~malso ablefoforwardplans/~eports~iaernail ify;u would iikepleasejustlet · mekn~w.: _. . .. . .' . .... . .. :' . .,' . · Theproje~t has been~laced onhold;pending t~ereceipt of a Habitat'Data Report,. ,' •. analyZing i(l]paets to c;itical habitats for animals on the site .. Additionally, the City has · requested th:e applicanfprovide an independent secondar'V:re'vieiwof the applicant's '. • -• ,. , ',' -, .,J -, '.-_ • . ' .. -. " , . . "'.' >': . ".', . :' ... " .. ' ' ' .. " ;, Rent6ndty ·Hall.-;. 1055 South.GradyWay • Renton;Washington 98057 • rentoriwa:gov , ,', :'. ' , , ." " ; : ~ . ' " ,- , ." ' , ,. :' . ",' . '. '. ' , ' Mrs. QueensberrY Page 2 of 2 " , January 16;2014 ' ' , .<' , , , , .... , ,w.etland analysis and transportation analysis and the effectiveness of the proposed' 'mltigatio(l,' ' " " ,," " As a reminde;, the City has placed the praject on hold, and cdncelled the public hearing originally si:heduledbn 'laniiaryi3, 2014, pending the receiPt of additional info;mation'by the applicant.', " '" Given there was a major holiday duringthe, initial publicco;"mentperiod the City will conduct an additional two-week public comment peri~don'ce requested material,s have :" been submitted,', Noi:ice;cifthe 'start" of the: additional 'com merit 'periodan'd the rescheduled, heari~g:date, will,' be' proliided; in the, form of: 'an 'adciitionall~tt~r, to all, .' property owner~witliin 300 feet ofthesubject property; notices posted in at least three' ' conspicuous places near the pmperty; and,you will,receive (in the mail) a courtesy copy', ohlle off-hold letter providedtothe applicant,' ,,' .~ : Thank y~ufor i~terest inthis ~roject and if you liaveany f~rtherqLiestionspleasefeel ,free to 'cbntact rneat425-<l30~72i9 orrti'mmons@rentoriw~,gOV,Thilnk yoil. ',' ' :-' ~::;y~ ~~Z~~'r Planner " ' '. ,-: "".: . , ./ • . From the desk of Rosemary Quesenberry 3609 Southeast 18 Court Renton, WA. 98058 • RE: development of plat # 2123059061, 2 I 23059051, and 2123059044 I oppose the magnitude of development of the above plats ofland as proposed by ... The impact of developing this property to the magnitude desired by the developer would have an extreme negative impact on the existing neighborhoods and the environment. I am requesting a formal wetland delineation. I dispute the size of the wetlands as indicated in the proposed development plans. I believe that the wetland area is considerably underestimated in size as well as locations within the site. This area absorbs and retains a great amount of water. An evaluation of the amount of wetland vegetation, hydrology, and hydraulic soil should be evaluated by a scientist. A large buffer zone should be imposed to protect unique large trees and other vegetation that protect the wetlands. The wetland areas have old cedar trees that are essential to the preservation of the wetland area. I dispute the number of trees counted within the site. The number of trees and their age have been underestimated. The technical soil sample evaluafi"on was completed in September 2012. This work was completed after a record "no measurable rainfall" for a period of over 60 days. The results do not reflect the true condition of the soil. I request a second soil evaluation be completed. I request an evaluation the aquifers that flow within the proposed development s site. Aquifers and recharge areas are essential to our environment and must be identified and protected. • • r am requesting a wildlife area habitat evaluation be completed on the site. r encourage that development be delayed until the bird hatching period is over. This area is abundant with varies types of wildlife. The increased automobile traffic will have a negative impact on the existing neighborhoods based on limited access to the property. The access to the property greatly increases the traffic flow in existing residential streets. There is no thoroughfare to accommodate the increased traffic flow. Pedestrian traffic would also be negatively impacted by the large amount of automobile traffic. I encoumge a traffic mitigation measures be designed by a specialist to address the situation. For the reasons listed above, I oppose the magnitude of this plat proposal. C dially, . -'-lL\:\D~ wesT~ chr X'{\OY\~ A~ e5\"38 7,013 1090 0001 . ( , . o _. ____________ ~o_ .~~ • -' ') 0-•• ____ • __ 0 I r 1111111111111111111 M~' S. POSTAGE JAW UCOPA.AZ aSI39 ~ .2 UNITEO~Ti1TE5 POS-fIlL SERVICE 1000 98057 utC02.·13 AMOUNT $3.10 OOD3.q496-01 ~ ~~ ~\~ ful\\\e('\II1\~S '7~ ,y it' Q\M~\\\j \)\()\-:;~ """"7$~~ ~'III~~:;t'I"I"'I'I""'II'''I'''I''''''I' ~ "." De'nis.Law Maypr ". January.16, 2014 . " '."'" .... Depa'rtmeni ofCom';';~nityan'd Ecqnomic Devel()pment' , , ",. C.E:"Chip"Vihcent, Administrator '. , '. , , _. . . ,.' .' .. ' .. David Bee,don 1725 Pierce Ave SE '.' , Reniori"WA9'8058 '. ' ,,' SUBJECT:' RESERVE ATTIFFANYPARKCcir-liMENT RESPONSE LETTER'" . " " . LuA13~001572, PP, ECF '" . . ',' 'r: . , -,. . " ,Dear Mr. Beedon: -.~. ····.'Thank YOlJ f?ryour c6m rll ents (e';lailand letter)/elatedto the Reserve~t Tiffany,~ark; 'dated December 10, 2013 wherein you raised ,concerns tothe City's notificationprOcess . '. ahdcommentperlod,Your,letter V'o'ill be added to the public record fo/ccin~ideration by' th~reviewingOfficial.andYou hav~ b~en addedasa partyof record, ' . '.', . Public comment was requestedap~ropriatelyb~ the City using the fo'liowingmeasures .. '," ,percode:'(a) ariotice board on the site, (b) a notice in a newsp~per of general local. ' . ; circulation, and (e) written notice is mailed toall pr~perty,owner.s'within threehundred feet(300') of thes~bjec(property. A i4-day cO.mment period (not lihnitedto business • .. ·days)is'prd~ided.On~e the City issues a SEPA Threshold Determination, foll~wi;,gthe . . comment period,then the City holds a 14:day appealperiod,' . . . " . . .. " . . -.. ~ . . .' .. " , . However, given the fact that there v:.as Holiday duringth~ c6ri\mentperi6d and thee . sensitivenatureoftherir'ojecfthe Cityh~s decided to~xteridthe comment period,' ' .' .' The City has placed the projetto;"holdpendingthe receipt of additional information by .. , . th~ applic~nL Once thejequ'estedmaterials have beensubr'nitted to the City Will ,.' '~onduct a'n additional two,week public comment'period.·' .. ' •. , . ,. ", . It should dlsobe' noted'thatthe Public Heaririq,:whichwas tentatively scheduled on ' . '.' January23,Z014, Has befm'cancel/ed and wilibe rescheduiedonce the requested . supplementatinaterials have been received. "" . ." Notice ofthe start oftlieadditionai comment p~riod; andthe n'ew tentative hearing .' date and time, willbeprovided in theforrnof: an additionalletterto all property" . ,owners within 300 feetof the subject property;small.pink n01kes'posted in at least . "threeeonspicuous'placesnearthe' property; and/or you wiil ;eceive (in the mail) a ' " .. courtesy copyoftheoff-hold letter provided to the applicanC. Renton City Hall'. 1055 South GradyWay • R~nton,washington9Iio57 • (enioriwa,gbv' . "., . ' . . . ..... . .' . . .'-.' ty1r. Beedon , · Page 2 of 2 .' · ·January·16, 2014' • ,', " " , To address Y9ur concerns the app'licantwill be required to comply with the City's. : . . . ' · .• develop~ent regulatidnsasweil. asWashingt~n State's EnvironrT1E!~taIPolicy (SEPAj .. which inciude ~equirernents for mitigation for impactsc1IUsed by the development .• The.City wil.1 review the proposaL with regard t~ the protectionofvaluabl~ .. ' .' · . environrnental amenities many of which you mentioned in y~ur letter. We will be working to~nsurethedevelopmentis as co~patibl·e,as.possible withthe'ecol~gical . balance of the area. The goals ofthe City areto preserve drainage patterns, protect ". "groundwater supply, prevent erd?ion arid topr'eserve trees and natural vegetation ... Additionally, the applicantjs required to demonstrate propefprovisions.for all public'. faciii1:ies (including vehicular acces{ pedestrian ci;culation, utilities,and. services). :, " .. ' The applicant has pro~ided Wetland,Arb'ori;t, Transportation, Geotechnical/Soils, arid .. . Drainage an~lysis; a~d potential mit'igation, 'prepared by certified professionals. You .•. :. · . stated:thatthe pUbiit is [mabie to rec~griiiewetiand flagging onthe property and you' asked City to require the applicant t6delineatl;!.wetl~nds; in the fi~ldso i:liatthe .... . 'wetland bou!ldaries could bemade obvious to.thepublic .. This comment has been '. forwarded tothedeveloperfor consideration. Hgwever, the subject site is private' . property and.we are unabieto require the applicant to provide flagging for inspection. from the public. . '. .' " . , ' " The Cityhasplacedtheprojecton hold; pending' the receipt of an independ~nt . . .' .. ' .. ' .' :",', ,,' .;, . , ,,' .. ' ,: ':'.' , .' .. seconqary reviewofthe applicant s wetland analysis andtransportationanalysisand the .' . etfectivenessof the proposedmifigation. Additionally,the City has,requested the ". applicaht provide a Habitat DataReport,analyzing'impacts to critical habitats for , ' ,-,,' , ' animals on the site. .. Thank you for interest .in this project and it' yo~ have any further questions please feel. freeto.contaci: me at 425-,~30~7219 ?;rrtilllm.ons@rentoriwa.gov. thank·yciu'.· .. .•• ~ ... Sincer~eIY' ;' .....• ' ....... . , " " .. ,~ ' •. o~ leTim '. .' •... . " se orPlanner . '. .•.. . ..' :' i , , , .. '" : '. , .J ': .' ," '::, " . ". i' . ; , .' ','.' , . , :' Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: David Beedon December 10, 2013 Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • Dave Beedon <davebeedon@comcast.net> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:51 PM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park Reserve / LUA13-001572 ECF, PP Follow up Flagged Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve / LUA13-001572 ECF, PP Ms. Timmons: • I challenge the Tiffany Park Rreserve development and the way the City of Renton has notified residents thereof. First, the City's method of notifying residents was inadequate. The only public notification of the proposed development was the installation of one sign at the dead end of SE 18th Street, a place with poor visibility. The manner of installation was counter-productive in that the sign was mounted on a slope above the street, making it impossible to see the development map affixed to it. The only way I could inspect the map was to stand on a six-foot stepladder. To install a sign in such a way defeats its purpose. Second, I challenge the commenting period for responding to the City's notice sent to me in the mail. The notice was postmarked on November 26 and stated a commenting period ending on December 10. If I had received the notice on the 26th, I would have had 14 days to comment. But due to the Thanksgiving holiday (November 28), on which there was no mail delivery, I did not receive the notice until November 29th, giving me 11 days to comment. If the City is using a 14-day period for comments, the City did not meet that requirement. As I understand it, 14 days is the typical period for commenting. Thus I ask: "Why was the commenting period shortened for this project?" Thirdly, I challenge the notice itself because of its confusing wording in the paragraph "OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M)." It is unclear how the present comment period (for the Notice of Application dated November 26,2013) relates to the "comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M." Thus I must ask: A. What is the comment period for the project and how does it differ from the present comment period? B. When does the project comment period start and end? I challenge the proposed developer's proposal because of the following: 1. The publicly-displayed map of the development does not specify any visual buffer around its perimeter. A visual buffer is needed to preserve the attractiveness---and thus the value---of the neighborhoods bordering the site. In addition, the 1 ------------------ present woods provide a sound bu.or the existing residents. The presence .e woods has contributed to the desirability of living in this area. Many houses in this area were purchased in part because of the presence of the woods on the site. I ask the City to deny the developer's proposal because of this shortcoming and require the developer to provide a visual buffer of existing trees and other vegetation along the site's perimeter. A buffer of newly-planted trees would be inadequate because decades would be required to approximate the type of buffer existing vegetation provides. 2. I have seen no explanation by the developer or the City about the fact that existing streets are going to be inundated with more vehicles. Even if the developer gets permission to use 124th Place S.E. as an access point, the existing neighborhoods will be subjected to a flood of additional street traffic on a daily basis. For example, if 100 houses are built, that could equate to as many as two hundred vehicles entering and exiting the site every work day, and most of that during morning and afternoon rush hours. I would not that level of traffic on my street and would not wish such a condition on anyone else. The City can mitigate this problem by limiting the number of house in the development to a much lower number, perhaps 50 houses. 3. The wetlands on the site as defined by the surveyors are inadequately depicted to the citizenry for two reasons: A: As far as I can tell, there is no marking on the site that shows how the surveyors defined the extent of wetlands. If they did mark the wetland boundaries, they did so in a way that ordinary citizens cannot recognize. Thus citizens have no way of knowing how accurate the map is. Thus before the City approves the developer's proposal, it should require the developer to have surveyors mark in an obvious manner the wetland boundaries as plotted on the their topographic map and on the preliminary plat. Then citizens can have a better understanding of the proposed development. B. The surveyors who created the topographic map of the site made their measurements at a time when there had been very low rainfall for an extended period. Thus the full extent of the wetlands was not obvious . . Thus before the City approves the developer's proposal, it should require the developer to have surveyors survey the wetlands after an extended period of rainfall (and mark the wetland boundaries in an obvious manner). 4. The proposed development does not indicate an intention to preserve any paths that have existed on the site for decades. The surveyors's topographic map only indicates the path that connects the end of Southeast 18th Street with the Mercer Island pipeline right-of-way. It does not indicate the system of paths elsewhere on the site. These paths have existed for decades and thus represent public rights-of-way. They were in place when I moved here in 1980. They are used a shortcuts across the site, for observing nature, and walking dogs. They are also used by people playing "airsoft" games in the woods. The preliminary plat shows that none of them is being preserved. Thus the City should require the developer to preserve as many of these paths as possible in the public interest. Public access to the wetlands is important. I wish to become a party of record for this project. Thank you. David Beedon 1725 Pierce Avenue S.E. Renton WA 98058 Tel. (425) 277-0945 December 10, 2013 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • Dave Beedon <davebeedon@comcast.net> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:03 PM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park Reserve / LUA13-001572 ECF, PP Follow up Flagged Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve / LUA13-001572 ECF, PP Ms. Timmons: (This is a follow-up message to my e-mail message and letter of the same date.) I challenge this development for these additional reasons: • .1. The developer's remarks on the Planning Department's Environmental Checklist has two omissions: A. In the question regarding public transportation and bus service, the developer failed to identify the nearest bus stop. B. In the listing of wet soil plants, the most imposing such plant (Devils Club) is not mentioned. There are large specimens thereof in a drainage area feeding wetland C, some as tall as ten feet. These plants are located roughly at housing tracts 50 and 52. There are also smaller ones roughly at tract 47 or 49. It baffles me why these major plants were omitted from the listing. 2. The proposed wall along the Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way, supposedly a stone wall up to ten feet tall, is an abomination. The height and material of the wall would be ugly and sterile compared to natural vegetation or a normal wooden fence found in residential areas. It would create a prison-like atmosphere that would reduce the value of existing property nearby, be obnoxious to persons walking on the pipeline, and send the message to existing neighbors that their existence is undesirable. Such a wall is suitable for an industrial area, not a residential neighborhood. 3. It appears that the developer intends to basically strip the developed area of trees. This would eliminate many large, healthy trees that should be preserved. This includes several tall cottonwoods and firs. Mitigating such destruction with some street-side plantings is inadequate. The developed area should retain more of the existing healthy trees. David Beedon 1 .~ • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 • David Beedon 1725 Pierce Avenue S.E. Renton W A 98058 Tel. (425) 277-0945 December 10,2013 CITY OF RENTOU . RECEIVED DEC 10 2013 Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve / LUA 13-001572 ECF, PP BUILDING DIVISION Ms. Timmons: I challenge this development and the way the City of Renton has notified residents thereof. First, the City's method of notifying residents was inadequate. The only public notification of the proposed development was the installation of one sign at the dead end of SE 18 th Street, a place with poor visibility. The manner of installation was counter- productive in that the sign was mounted on a slope above the street, making it impossible to see the development map affixed to it. The only way I could inspect the map was to stand on a six-foot stepladder. To install a sign in such a way defeats its purpose. Second, I challenge the commenting period for responding to the City's notice sent to me in the mail. The notice was postmarked on November 26 and stated a commenting period ending on December 10. If I had received the notice on the 26 th , I would have had 14 days to comment. But due to the Thanksgiving holiday (November 28), on which there was no mail delivery, I did not receive the notice until November 29 t \ giving me II days to comment. If the City is using a 14-day period for comments, the City did not meet that requirement. As I understand it, 14 days is the typical period for commenting. Thus I ask: "Why was the commenting period shortened for this project~" Thirdly, I challenge the notice itselfb~cause of its confusing wording in the paragraph "OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS- M)." It is unclear how the present comment period (for the Notice of Application dated November 26,2013) relates to the "comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M." Thus I must ask: A. What is the comment period for the project and how does it differ from the present comment period? B. When does the project comment period start and end? / / . " -, ----------------• • Page 2 of David Beedon letter of Decerilber 10,2013 to Rocale Timmons [ challenge the proposed developer's proposal because of the following: I. The publicly-displayed map of the development does not specify any visual buffer around its perimeter. A visual buffer is needed to preserve the attractiveness---and thus the value---of the neighborhoods bordering the site. [n addition, the present woods provide a sound buffer for the existing residents, The presence of the woods has contributed to the desirability of living in this area, Many houses in this area were purchased in part because of the presence of the woods on the site, I ask the City to deny the developer's proposal because of this shortcoming and reqLiire the developer to provide a visual buffer of existing trees and other vegetation along the site's perimeter. A buffer of newly-planted trees would be inadequate because decades would be required to approximate the type of buffer existing vegetation provides. 2. [have seen no explanation by the developer or the City about the fact that existing streets are going to be inundated with more vehicles. Even if the developer gets permission to use 124'h Place SE as an access point, the existing neighborhoods will be subjected to a flood of additional street traffic on a daily basis, For example, if 1 00 houses are built, that could equate to as many as two hundred vehicles entering and exiting the site eve~' work day, and most of that during morning and afternoon rush hours, I would~~fuat level of traffic on my street and would not wish such a d " 411 A con Ilion on anyone else. .s The City can mitigate this problem by limiting the number of house in the development to a much lower number, perhaps 50 houses, " 3, The wetlands on the site as detined by the surveyors are inadequately depicted to the citizenry for two reasons: A. As far as I can tell, there is no marking on the site that shows how the surveyors defined the extent of wetlands, If they did mark the wetland boundaries, they did so in a way that ordinary citizens cannot recognize, Thus citizens have no way of knowing how accurate the map is. Thus before the City approves the developer's proposal, it should require the developer to have surveyors mark in an obvious manner the wetland boundaries as plolled on the their topographic map and on the preliminary pial. Then citizens can have a better understanding of the proposed development. --------------------- ,. " " • • Page 2 of David Beedon letter of December 10, 2013 to Rocale Timmons B. The surveyors who created the topographic map of the site made their measurements at a time when there had been very low rainfall for an extended period. Thus the full extent of the wetlands was not obvious. Thus before the City approves the developer's proposal, it should require the developer to have surveyors survey the wetlands after an extended period of rainfall (and mark the wetland boundaries in an obvious manner). 4. The proposed development does not indicate an intention to preserve any paths that have existed on the site for decades. The surveyors's topographic map only indicates the path that connects the end of Southeast 18"1 Street with the Mercer Island pipeline right-of-way. It does not indicate the system of paths elsewhere on the site. These paths have existed for decades and thus represen~ublic rights-of~way. They were in place when I moved here in 1980. They are used a shortcuts across the site, for observing nature. and walking dogs. They are al~ used by people playing "airsoft" games in the woods. The preliminary plat shows that none of them is being preserved. Thus the City should require the developer to preserve as many of these paths as possible in the public interest. Public access to the wetlands is important. I wish to become a party of record for this project. Thank you. \ Sincerely, ~B~ David Beedon ,-------------------,---,---------c---------------- ~ ... , , '" Denis Law ',Mayor. , ,Janua'ryi6,2014 "Robin jo~es ' " , 3624' SE 19th St ,'" Renton,WA98058:' , " , " . .,. .... \':"," .', '-", , Department of (oinmunityand Economic DeVelopment, ,,' ", 'C.E,"Chip~Vincent,Adminis_t"itor , . :. "-". ", SUBJECT: "RESERVEAHIFFANV PARK COMMENTRESPONSE LETTER •• LUA13-iio~572; PP,ECF "" .. . ', .. "', ..... ' ... : ." .. ' . " , "Deartvlr, Jones: ":, ' ".-, . "," Thahkyou fOr your cOrlunents, relaiedto theHeserveat Tiffany Park; dated'December" '10~ 2013.Vour lette'r will beaddeato the p~blic recordfor'consideration by the ," ' , reviewing official and you have been added as a party of ~ecord," ,",' " , • • • '--. ' -" • ~ • • ' • " .--'., • -.. • .' '. '~o" • "-. -. The School District is unaQleto make findings on Cityregulated zoning and', ' 'unfortunately, lamunable tospeakto the advisements made by the RentonSchodl ' District,as it theya~es~parate Organiiation, The City has never madefiriding~for:a putiiicschoolon, the subject site: The ap'piiciJni:,'HenleyU~ALLc;' has applied for " PreliminaryPla'tand Environmental Review forthe subject development, ,I do hope that ,'" "yOufindtheCityof Re~ton's p;ocesVregulations t'obetransparent and,inclusive for the " ' .. ' ,'proposedsubdivisl6n, ' , " ' , ,': 'TheCity is unable to pr~clude development of the subject propertyas,itisprivately, ',owned, If you believe you,have implie'd legalrighfs to use the property,.1 would, . ,encourage you to s~ekleg,lI counsel astheargument wouidbe consideredapriv;lt~ property rights dispute and the City ~ould not intervene, ' .. ... , . .' .' , To addr~ssyour'concernsthe applicant ~ill tie required to comply with the ;City's', ' , developn'ientregiJlations as well as Washington State's Envirqnme~tal Policy (SEPA) , which include'requirements for mitigation for impacts c·au~ed, by the deitelopm~nt, ", . .' " '. . .. . '.. : . , . , "The'Cityyvil1 revieyv theproposalwithregard ,to the p!otectioh ,Of valuable " ' environmental amenities many6f whiCh you meritioried iri, your letter. We will be , "working to'ensure the developmet,tis'a's i:bmp~titile aspossible with ,tli e' ecoidgica'i , balance ofthe are~, The g~als~f~he tit yare to preserve drainage patterns, protect " -grou~dwater supply, pre~ent erbsio~ ~nd to preserve trees and natural vegetation, . . .' ...-. .. . -. , .' " . , " -, ". '. Renton City Hall -1055 South Grady Way • Rehto'n, washin'gto,n 98057 • rentonw~,gov " .. ' . { . --' : . . ,". Mr. and Mrs. Swa'nson ...• Page 201 2 Janu'ary 16, 2014 .. • · "" . .•.. . : ,. , . .' • I ....' -", Additionally; the applicant is requirea to demonstrateproperproitisions'forall public' . facilities (indudingvehicLilar access; pedestrian circulation, utilities; and seivices).··· • .' • ': f' • • • The applicant has provided Wetland, Arborist; Iransportatio~;Geotech~i~aI/Soils, and . · Dr~inageanalysi~, and potentialmitigatiOri, prepared by certified professi(Jhals~. The City" . is happy to provide access to the file/reportSJor viewing ahdcopying(at $0:15 per .. . . page). If you are interested in ~jewing th~fife you are able. to,cometo the front desk,on .. the 6th floOr of city Hall, between the hours 8:00 ani and 5:00pm andrequesnhe file. 'j' .. amaIsoahle to fOrward plans/reports vi~ email if you wo~ld like pleasejust letme' . kn~.·· .,... . . '. ". .. ,' ". The project has: been placed on hold, pending the receipt of a HabitatData Report, ,'. ", -: I' . ,". ,.'. .' ,analyzing impacts to critical habitats for animals on the site.~ Additionally, the:City. has '.' requested the applicant provide an independent secondary 'reviewoftheapplicant's ~etlandanalysisand transportation analysis and theeffe~ti~enessonhe proposed.' mitigation. ..' .. .... .) ... ':', . As a.reminder, the City has placed the proiticton holii, and cancelled the' pubiic '. '.' . hearingoricjfnallyscheduled on JimuarY 23,2014, pendinqthe receiptor additional . . . information by theaiiplicant; ...... .,.' . , .. ,' Given the~e wasarnajo( holiday during .the initial public cOmm~rit period the CitY"';ill conduct im additional twO-weekpubli~'commentperiod once requested mate~ials have' beeri submitted.', Notice. of the start of the additional cOmment period and the' reschedJledhea~i~g date'will be provided in the Jorm of: a~ additional letter to' all " , . '. prop.~rty·ownerswitliin 3bci feet of thesubjeci: property; noi:ic~s po~i:ed in ;t least three' · conspi~uous places near the property; and you will receive (inthemail).a tourtesy cop'~ of the off-hold letter provided to th·eapplicant. .... . . . '. . . . , --. . . ~ . " '.' '. '.:.,', : ,," I' . •..... ".:' ',.'. r.·" . '. ," . : . . . ·c. '. . . -,' . Thank you for interest intbis project and if You, have .any: fur,ther q\Jestionsplease feel . " free to cOntact .me at 425-430'7219 orrtimmoris@rentonwa:g(Jv.Thank you. . . . .. . , -. -,' -, .' -,. . ~SinCer~eIY' .• ,'. . . ~ , oc Ie Tim Se or Planner . . " . . . I" ,I . . . .' ... . " -:' ,-, . J ,: " . ~ .-, Mr. Robin Jones 3624 SE 19th CT Renton, W A, 98058 City of Renton Development Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A, 98055 ATTN: Rocale Timmons • Subject -Tiffany Park Reserve, LUAI3·001572, ECF, PP • CliY OF RENTON ~ RECEIVED \Il ~ DEC 10 '1.0\3 ~\ BUILDING DIVISION I am writing to raise concerns, during the public comment period about the Notice of Application that has been posted for the Tiffany Park Reserve. As a property owner living next door to this property, I strongly believe that I will be significantly impacted, both in terms of property value and quality of life, by the proposed design. My concerns with proposed plans are; 1. I have a general concern with the overall feasibility ofthe development plan presented. This area of land was purchased for use as a school in the early 1970 by the Renton School Board; we were advised in 2012 by the Renton School Board that a school could no longer be built on this site due to location and access issues and that the City of Renton zoning regulations no longer support construction of a school. It is unclear how the restrictions presented that precluded this possible school development do not somehow preclude the development of the proposed housing area. I believe that the proposed plan does not adequately address the earlier location and access concerns and that the initial approval of this development plan did not acknowledge these earlier Issues. 2. I have a general concern with the overall plan presented for the entire area of the property for this type of development. This area of land has been undeveloped for close to forty years with no indication until last year that the Renton School Board had any intention of doing anything with it. Indeed most of the homeowners in the area, to include myself, assumed that this was an established green belt area and purchased our home with an understanding that this was so. Given the length of time that this area has been left free standing I believe that I have an implied and tacit expectation that this area should remain somewhat similar. I would argue that some given the length of time and continual use by the community of this area of land during these past forty years that some principles of the Prescriptive Easement apply in this situation. 3. I have a general concern with the overall plan; that the very limited layout options available to the developer, plus the need to recover the purchase and development costs, resulted in the developer forcing a high revenue generating, design into a very unsuitable space. The focus on making a high revenue generating development, fit the awkward lot size, within a limited time frame may have caused the developer not to acknowledge . , • • some of the impacts their plan has on their neighbors and the surrounding community. This is reflected by the overall quality of the plan which has obvious, errors, duplications, and incorrect references (City of Kent). The impression is that the developer has shown little concern in checking or validating their material. 4. Specific Areas of concern a) Tree Retention - I don't believe that an honest effort has been undertaken by the developers to comply with the Tree Retention Requirement. A number of concerns within this area; the developer failed to try and meet the minimum number of trees that should be retained, the deduction of trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous seems proportionally high in comparisons to other development project, and it is unclear where in RMC 4-4-130 it allows for trees in proposed public streets to be deducted from the overall retention count. b) Wet lands - I don't believe that all the requirements around the wet lands within the proposed development plan have been correctly met. The roads in and out clearly encroach into the Wetland buffer areas in areas C and D. There appears to be minimal efforts to meet the buffer distances as defined by the distance. The roads could be slightly alters to avoid encroaching into the Wetland buffer. I believe are-assessment of the wetland calculations and the buffer distances are needed to promote the purposed of using a buffer by distance as opposed to using Buffer averaging. c) Lot Size and Density -these are very small lots, significantly smaller that the surrounding houses which are 6,000 square feet or larger. Given the maturity of the existing community and the total enclosure of the proposed development area by existing homes the plans gives no consideration to any compatibility with the surrounding area, it is merely an effort to maximized the number of homes with the proposed area. I believe that greater efforts need to be made to harmonize with the surrounding community. A number of additional concerns within this area; it is unclear from the zone calculation sheet whether this includes the proposed roads, which still need right of way access, or not, it is unclear from the sheet whether the Critical Areas footage has been using the adjusted buffer distances proposed by the developer or the required distances, and what part of the 2.8 acre sensitive areas have been included in the critical area exclusion calculation 12, 056 number. • • d) Line of sight. The current plan has a continual line of houses along the Mercer Island Pipeline Easement which will have direct line of site into the adjacent properties, to include mine. There appears to be no effort to manage direct lines of sight in to our properties or provide any degree of screening. I would request that this concern be reviewed and addressed. e) Right of Way access and Easements -Unclear how the plan can be considered acceptable without a clear understanding of whether the developer have acquired the need access and easement to build roads and plan development with both the City of Mercer and Cedar River Pipeline Organizations. Would request initial approval be demonstrated from both these part.ies prior to any site plan approval. f) Envirorunental Check list -some concerns with portions of this initial review. Key concern would be around the Wetland report, some of the property measurements were conducted at the end of the year 2012, following one of the driest summers on . record. The perception by the community is that this was deliberately by the developer to minimize the wetland impact results. I have concerns that the results accuratel y reflect the normal condition of this area around the ground and surface water assessment. A couple of concerns in this area, given the time that the area has been undeveloped, I don't believe that due investigation has occurred effort around whether there are any threatened/endangered animals and whether this site is part of a migration route. g) Traffic and Access Issues -Fundamental concerns in this area is that all traffic into area is being routed thru local access streets no major thru of fairs. This is a significant increase of traffic in around key areas to include an Elementary school, recreational areas, and walking trails. I can be reached at (425) 228 4396 or RobinHJ@msn.com to schedule hearing times. Thank you Robin Jones , Denis Law ' . ~ayor ~ . . ' January 16, 2D14 ) . . . . •• Albert and Sharon Oc~o . i711 Pierce Ave SE Renton; WA98058. Department of CommunitY and Economic Development , . C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator . . . "'sUBJE(:T: "RESERVE AT tlHANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER •. '" UJA13:001S72, PP; ECF '. , ." DearMr.and Mrs.Ocho: . '. Thankybufor your comments related to the Reserve ~ttiffanyi>ark; dated Decem.be~ . iO,2i513. Ybur.letterwill be added.to the public recordforcensideration by the .. '. reviewlhgofficialand you:have beenadded as a partYot'rec9rd. .'. '. " -, '-, . The City is unable to preclude development, or r~q'uirethe propertY be preserved as a. park,.asit ispriv~telyovVned: HOvVeiter, to addressy()~r concerns the appiicimtwili'be . . . ..•. required to comply with the City's developim;ntregul~tionsas well as Washington ." '. St<it~'sEnitirorimerital Policy (SEPA)whichindudes requiremerit~ for mitigatienfor impactscausedby the development. ....... . .. .. ; "., . ....•... While the proposal will not specifically bereviewed'lNithrespe'c'ttoimpaCts o~ .. , .. ' surrOundiJig property values the CityWili ~eview the proposal with regard to the', ..•.. ... , protectionof. valuableenvir6nrriental amenitiesandtoensureth·edevelopme.ntisas , compatible as possiqfe with theecolbgical balance ofthe area. The goals oHhe Cit yare , . ·t6preservedrainagep~tt~rns, prQtect grOundwat~rsupply, prevent erosioh:~md to . preserve trees and.naturalvegetation.Additionally,the applicant'is required to demonstr'ate proper. prOvisions for all public facilities.(iridudingacces·s,circulation;· util ities, an dservices) .. ' .' .. '. The project hasbeenplaced on hold, pending the receipt of a HabitatDat~ Re~brt, . . analyzing inrip~cts to critical habitats for animals onthesite: -Additionally, the Cityhas .'. requested the applicant Flrovide anind~i:>endent secondary review of the applicant's '. wetland analysis and transportation analysis and the effectivenes~ of the proposed ". ' , ~ ,'-, , , ' -. mitigation ... . . -- Renton ci~ Hall • i 05S 50ut,h Grady Way .• Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonw •. gov. :.".1 : '-- -,: '._,,'" , . . ," ' .' .. I .• , •• .Mr.-and Mrs. Ocho, .',. •. :. Page 2 of 2 . . January 16, 201( ,'f . ," •" .. ' .. .. " . . As~. remi~der, The City has plai:edthe project on iloid, and cancelled the,public hearing originally schedu!edon January i3. 2014, pfmdinq thneceipt of additional.' ... infdrmationby the applicant .. ' Given there was a major holiday during theinitiaipubliccomment period the Gity will conduct an.additibri~1 two-we~k publiccbmnientperio:d once reqlJestedm~terialshave· . . . beensubmitt~d:·· Noti~e'oftlie start .of.the·additionalcomment period.and the . resthe'dulE~d h~aringdatewillbe provided in the form of:a~ additional letter. toal'l property owners within 500feetofthesubject property; notices posted iM at least three conspicuous places near theprbpe'i1:y; and you willreceive(in the ~ail) a courtesy copy . . . . ofthe of Hold lette~ provided to the app·licant. .' . .' . ', . , . '. ,;. Thanky()u for interest. in this project and if you have'any further.questions please feel' free to ~ontact meat '425-430-72190rrtimmons@r~ntonwa.gdv.Thank you.. . . '.' '. .,' '., . . . ", ; ... ' ' .' .Siricer~eIY' .' ....... ' ." .•.........•..•. ' '. ~ .... ' ..................... ~ ...... . . ..... Dc'leTim . .' ........ ' .. ' , Se, orPlann~r .... : '.' ... " '. . . . '. . .~ . ,I": " ... . .- ... ' ':" . " \ . ,', " '0' • • Dear Senior Planner: I would like to go on record as being opposed to the development of the Tiffany Park Reserve as currently planned. The cutting of the woods, grading of the land, building of roads, utilities and residences would have a negative impact on wildlife, the environment, property values, neighbors and the citizens of Renton. Some, but not all, of the negative aspects are listed here: 1. Reduction of wildlife habitat. These woods are home to Bobcats, many birds including owls and the occasional eagle, deer, raccoons and others. The development would reduce or eliminate their presence. It could also result in an increase certain pests such as rats and mice in the area as a result of the reduction in predators. 2. Impact to the environment by the removal of trees. Taking down 21 acres of forest would reduce the production of oxygen and the consumption of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The wetlands would be affected, even if buffered, by the change in water flows from grading the land and the introduction of impermeable surfaces. And pollution of the air and water would increase. 3. Reduction of property values. The development of the site would reduce the value of the surrounding residences in several ways. The view from each house would go from one of peaceful nature to rows of closely spaced houses and fences. The noise levels would increase with all the additional dogs, cars and yard maintenance. The general traffic level would increase, and the houses on the two entrance roads would see a large increase. 4. Reduction of the quality of living here. The presence of the woods provides a great amount of pleasure to the people that live next to them. Even ~~ that are not direct neighbors benefit by having a nice place to walk an'd pl~E IVE D The site serves as a kind of undeveloped park for the area. DEC 10 2013 5. Possible damage to surrounding properties. The woods on the sffIT~~~I!iITON lliJ.NNINGD a windbreak for a large number of surrounding properties. A lot of these IVISION properties have a Significant number of large trees on them. Removal of the woods will expose tress to more wind during storms, which may lead to • • • property damage from falling trees. I submit that there has not been enough study and evaluation of the sale of the property and the development plan. I would like to see alternative uses for the property proposed and evaluated. My proposal would be to keep it as an undeveloped park owned by the city and kept as a refuge for wildlife and recreation. Thank you for your consideration. Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 425-228-2346 W~ ~(clV ~ 'tUe ~~. Ill-'e>ef(\ 8'1'.cl.. St-\-f\ R.. () N 0 c ~ 0 \I \ \. P \ \61ZC~s AV '5 6' KENTD I\..l) vJ A. q <;? 0 S '2S 42-5 2.55 022.5 ~~----------------------------------- • • From: rentonwa1@gmail.com SubJect: FWd: woods development Frisch's letter to city planner Date: December S, 2013 at 12:11 PM To: Sharon sI01111@/ivG.com, Geoff and Meredith geomer60@hotmail.com This is a great letter -maybe you can use it as a templet? The more people comment on this the better we have a chance to make a difference, so, please take the time and write something? You can also email your comment to rtjmmons@rentonwa,gov -this was in the notice you got from the city Renate Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Renate Beedon <rentonwa1 @gmajl.com> Date: December 7, 2013, 11 :52:29 AM PST To: Douglas Frisch <frjsch1 @hotmajl.com> Subject: Re: woods development Frisch's letter to city planner Wow -great letter, Doug, thank you! On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11 :17 AM, Douglas Frisch <frjsch1@hotmajl.com> wrote: Here is what I am mailing to the city planner today. Thank you for all the great effort. To: Timmons, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 Grady Way Renton 98057 Reference plat # 2123059061, 2123059051, and 2123059044 .' • ~ Q) ~ ;; -= eel -~ G ..J 0.-- ~" If '. : \ ± !'-l' .~ -11'1.: 0.. 0 .. ,::. I '-" IJ) :.-" C'i ' -~ :\.Li .-I s: '2 ~ ?t-O t Q) 0 CJJ ci U ,-(5' W (/) 3-ill Q (/) :1'. '"J; ~ ,~ >-« 9 "'> U) ,~ ~~ s: A () Ql " r~ <:" . _,.r: f:' f '> Ul C ~ Ul ,~ (\I :( . -~ 1fI (') I-~ s: (\1 LJ) (I) cd Q) I" Ul cLlr 0 ci.. 0 ~ ill In j ,----~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~~~~----------- December 19,2013 • RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 Board of Diredors Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Tiffany Park Project Dear Ms. Timmons, Lynnsmarais, resident Date Board of Directors, Renton School District State of Washington County of King Notary Public SIIIe 01 WIthington SANDRA M DDLPH My AppOintment EJIIII," Nov 21, 2011 (Place Notary Seal Above) RECEIVED DEC 232013 CITY OF RENTON . ~~ I certify that I know of or have satisfactory evidence that: NG DIVISION ffao aes·;za,..-Q,,;S (name of signer) who ppeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated: ~~/<....:::.;;J.,LI/~t2'-.L;;L/..;;3L-__ -;:-__ (month/day/year) Signature of Notarizing Officer: --"~'-""~"''-'~"''''A .... ",/,-,/fZ"-,-" ... (i);f-4.L4f''",,i ... .!,,-~_ Title (such as "Notary Public"): ~_M=-","OIc2'-'<1LC-7fL...,,#a:r.oZi .. 6~//'-'k-_· =--__ _ My appointment expires: A//JU, ClZ::lOI7 (Month/DaylYear) Launching Learning to Last a Lifetime 300 Southwest 7th Street, Renton, Washington 98057-23071 p.425.204.2340 1 f.425.204.2456 www.rentonschools.us • REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT MANAGEMENT LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 17, 2014 TO: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner SENT VIA: Hand Delivery City of Renton PHONE NO.: (425) 430-7219 1055 South Grady Way OUR JOB: BCE 160551 NS9318 Renton, WA 98057 RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park City File Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP Quantity Date Description 5 Copies 01/16/14 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment -Prepared by Soundview Consultants, LLC Please review the enclosed fish and wildlife habitat assessment and contact me if you need alY) fUi1Aerrillformation. Thanks. "" t: \.... ... C I V t: L.J JAN 1 7 ZOll CITY Ci= ;:tiNTON PLANN!NC DIVISION 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6110 (425) 251-8782 FAX WWWNOVASTARDEV.COMI60551.001 • Scope of Work City of Renton I -.-~-----~ -----Reserve at Tiffany Park Critical Areas Exemption Review I~:C£IV£D C/ry 8(011 Otak Proiect No. 3224I.BOO Proposal for Professional Services January 8, 2014 PI.<; Of: R. tvtvltvG fA/TOA. DlvlSIO '1/1 The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Otak, Inc (Otak) try provide the City of Renton (City) with a review of the Wetland Determination prepared for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminaty Plat. Pcr the City'S letter to Otak dated December· 16, 2013, the City has requested that Otak complete the following: 1) evaluate the accuracy of the delineation and classification of wetlands on the site, 2) evaluate the effectiveness of proposed mitigating measures for impacts, 3) provide alternative recommendations for the delineation and classification of wetlands, as necessaty, and 4) provide alternative mitigation measures for proposed impacts, as necessary. This independent secondary review will be based on a site visit and on documents provided to Otak by the City. Our approach to this work is divided into four tasks: 1) background review, 2) site visit, 3) preparation of a Memorandum of Findings, and 4) project coordination. If additional tasks are required, they will be included under a scope addendum; some potential contingency situations are described under Tasks 2 and 3. Scope of Work Task I-Background Review Otak staff will review the wetland determination documentation submitted by the project applicant to the City. This information includes the document entitled Wetland Determination-Re.rerve at Tiffany Park prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated October 20, 2013; and the Wetland Delineation Map prepared by Barghausen, dated October 18, 2013. The documentation will be analyzed to determine whether it meets the requirements of City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) with regard to critical areas. Assumptions: • Otak may (but is not required to) request additional engineering plan sheets or project documents as part of the background review, as necessary. otak K: \project\32200\32241 \Contract\ Tiffany Park \Reserve Tiffany Park_SO'W'_2013_0108.doc • • Scope of Work Continued Task 2-Site Visit Otak biologists will conduct a site visit to observe and evaluate existing conditions on the site. Specifically, the wetlarid delineation will be evaluated for accuracy, and the buffer habitat will be assessed with regard to the wetland buffer averaging proposal. Assumptions: • • Two Otak biologists will conduct a site visit that will last up to one full day. If an additional site visit is required for any reason, Otak will prepare a scope amendment for the specific effort. If a modification to the wetland delineation is required, Otak will describe the area of concern in the Memorandum of Findings (see Task 3), which is covered under this scope. Otak will then prepare a scope amendment for an additional site visit to confirm the new wetland edges, either with the project biologist or after the biologist has revised the delineation. Task 3-Memorandum of Findings Based on Otak's review of the project documents and the RMC, our staff will prepare a memorandum that summarizes our findings regarding whether 1) the wetland delineation and classification are accurate and complete, 2) the proposed wetland buffer averaging is consistent with the RMC. If any modifications are required to the wetland determination report or buffer averaging plan, Otak will provide specific instructions on how the applicant should adequately revise the documents. Assumptions: • Otak will describe specific document revisions that should occur, but will not complete the acrual revisions; the project applicant will be responsible for responding to Otak's requests in the memorandum. DeJiverables: • Draft and Final Memorandum of Findings, e-mailed in pdf format. A Word version of the Draft Memorandum will be provided if requested by the City. Task 4--Project Coordination This task will include general project management, development of the project approach, and coordination with City staff. Assumptions: • This task includes one 2-hour meeting (plus travel time) attended by an Otak biologist. K \project\32200\32241 \Contract\ Tiffany Park \Resenre Tiffany Park_SOW'_2013_01 OB.doc 2 otak •• Schedule and Fees Our proposed fee summary is as follows: Task I-Background Review Task 2-Site Visit Task 3-Memorandum of Findings Task 4--Project Coordination Direct Expenses • Proposed Fee Total Scope of Work Continued $700 $1.700 $1.900 $500 i.ldQ $4.950 Otak proposes to complete the above Scope of Work for a time and materials amount of $4,95.00. In-house reimbursable expenses and any outsourced direct expenses (e.g., postage! deliveries, mileage, etc.) will be invoiced at cost plus 10% and are included in the contract amount. This is a not-to-exceed scope of work under Otak's City of Renton Consultant Agreement to provide environmental services related to fisheries, wetlands, water quality, and critical areas. We will not exceed this budget without prior approval from the City. If conditions are found to be different from those described above, Otak will notify the City immediately to discuss any impacts to the scope of work and budget. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or need additional information, please feel free to contact Darcey Miller at (425) 739-7977. K: \project\32200\3224 t \Conttact\ Tiffany Park\Rcser ... e Tiffany Park_SOW _2013_0~08.doc 3 otak • November 26, 2013 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve LUA13-001572, ECF, PP • The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a Preliminary Plat located at SW of Pierce Ave SE and E of end of SE 18th St. Please see the attached 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 December 10, 2013. Elementary School: Tiffany Park ___________________ _ Middle School: Nelsen _________________________ _ High School: Lindbergh ______________________ _ Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes __ X_ No __ _ Any Comments: ____________________________ _ Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Enclosure Ms, Rocale Timmons Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S, Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 • • 10415 -147'h Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 January 3,2014 RE: PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Dear Ms. Timmons: While looking at the Current Land Use site on the City of Renton web site, I came across the above listed plat. Since Wayne Potter is involved with KBS and Windstone, I decided to comment even though the comment period is over. In the description it says: "The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant is proposing to retain 102 trees. (WOW!) It also says that this project is on hold. According to the attached document -Renton's Tree Policy. I am sure that the developers will say that all the trees will need to come down because they will be in the foundation's foothold. So, why bother having a tree policy? It takes years for trees to get to the size most trees are; the trees are the homes of wildlife and birds and enjoyment. What does this developer propose to do with the wildlife and birds that are displaced? And of course, the only mitigation is to replace them with trees barely big enough to be called trees. Maybe you should make the developer replace the removed trees with large fir trees and other "big trees". As previously stated, I've watched Windstone go in on Nile. The developer allowed yellow water to now down Greenes Stream to May Creek and didn't stop it. They allow dirt to stay on the road and now into the nearby streams without cleaning it up. They "forget" to put in mitigation trees until caught in the act. I hope that Renton really starts to protect the environment. Thank you. Sincerely, ~1)b-n4 Claudia Donnelly • From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Trees remaining In Renton Date: March 17, 20086:36:46 AM PDT Begin forwarded message: From: "Jennifer Henning" <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: March 15,20082:33:35 PM PDT To: "Michael/Claudia Donnelly" <thedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Re: Trees remaining in Renton Hello Claudia, • The revisions to the City's tree regulations became effective in September 2007. For projects subject to those regulations, a percentage of trees must be retained. Here is the code section (RMC4-4-130H): "H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENTIBUILDING PERMITS: 1. Protected Trees -Retention Required: Trees shall be retained as follows: a. Damaged and Diseased Trees Excluded: Trees that are dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200, or are safety risks due to root, trunk, or crown structure failure shall not be counted as protected trees. b. Residential: i. RC, R-l, R-4 and R-B Zones: Thirty percent (30%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. ii. R-10, R-14, RM-F, RM-T, RM-U and RMH: Ten percent (10%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. c. All Other Zones: Five percent (5%) of the trees located on the lot shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. d. Utility Uses and Mineral Extraction Uses: Such operations shall be exempt from the protected tree retention requirements of this Chapter if removal can be justified in writing and approved by the Reviewing Official. e. Replacement Requirements: i. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. • ii. When a tree or tree cluster that is part of an approved tree retention plan cannot be retained, mitigation shall be required per subsection H1ei of this Section. • iii. Unless replacement trees are being used as part of an enhancement project in a critical area or buffer, they shall not consist of any species listed in RMC 4-4-130H7d. f. Tree retention standards shall be applied to the net developable area. Land within critical areas and their buffers, as well as public rights-of-way, shall be excluded from the above calculation. If the number to be retained includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-half (1/2) tree shall be rounded up." In recent years. and prior to this change in regulations, we were requiring 25% tree retention in residential areas, or replacement, generally at 2:1 with a minimum 2-inch caliper. A "protected tree" is considered to be a minimum of 6-inch caliper, as measured at 54 inches above grade. There are situations where extensive site grading requires that all trees be removed. In those cases planting of new trees is required. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 (ph) jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us I I Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> 03/12/08 10:45 AM Jennifer: I got a note this morning about some clear cutting next to' Randy Corman's house. I thought --that in 2007 before the POP election, Renton decided on an ordinance that would "save trees" in developments. In the past few months, along NE 4th --a CAMWEST Development across from the QFC, there were alot of trees ---now there aren't any. Did Renton pass this "save a tree" in developments or not? Thank you for any information you can provide. Claudia Donnelly ------------------------------------------ • Wayne Potter, Novastar Dev Inc. Henley USA LLC Renton School District 403 See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) SS ) Contact Applicant Owner Parties of Record ~""'\\"\\\I ~l~'''' ~WcS'~~"" = '. -, -. -. -. -. ~ : I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea ~,' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tt12,-~~~ " mentioned in the instrument .. '" Dated: D~" 1(,/ dO 1.3 Notar "lic in and for the State of Washington Notary (print): ___ ---'-'I+"'ob{.:..:L:lo\-_?7'-· .... <2"N«-q."'-"-«:!... . ...;;$'>-______ _ My appointment expires: '--.J 8'1 0lC( ) CJO (7- Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572, ECF, PP Andreas Benson 12633 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St, 100 Bellevue, WA 98032 Gayle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 . RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Wayne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave S Kent. WA 98032 Robert Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 DAVID BEEDON 1725 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON, WA 98058-4747 Laura Silbernagel Sheryl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-3809 L.R. Riddle 12620 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98057 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton, WA 98056 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 DAVID BEEDON 1725 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON, WA 98058-4747 Bob Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Greg & Jenny Swanson 1819 Ferndale Ave S Renton, WA 98055 James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Ryan & Jennifer Spencer 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton,WA 98058 Anthony & Margaret Dean 16917 114th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Claire Johnson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 LARRY GORG 1800 LAKE YOUNGS Way SE RENTON, WA 98058-3812 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH Ct RENTON, WA 98058-4754 ------------------------- "',,-' , .. ' "" ' " ',' -, ~ - , ," 'DenisLaw' , •• ,"'" Ma~or, , :'" ' , December16,2Q13 , Department of Community and Eco,;oini~ Devel~prii.ent , ' , , ,CE,"Ch'ip"Vincent;,Administrator" ,Y./ayne potter, , ,NovastarDev 'Inc, ' "'1821572ri,d Ave5, " Kerit,WA 98032 , ' "On Hold" Notice " . , ;', " ,-," SUBJE~T: Reserve at TiffanyPa~k IUJAi3-001S72; ECF;PP " ',,' , ,'.' , ~ . " '.' . ;' , ", , " " 'Dear Mr, Potter:', ,1. : ., t, "' ',' , ' , ", i' ,',' :, :, "",', , ' ',' ," ,":, , ,,!.' .. ,' .' ••. ,' , , : The'Planning Divisionbf the City of Re'ntonaccept\!d th~ above master, application for , review ob November 25; 20i3,During our review, staffhasdetermi~ed that additional '"," ': ' -'. '0 ' ' , " " ,'.. _ " ' " ' ,.,' • "I' ", ,information is necessary in order to proceedfurther:, , " '" " ;', ," , " . , . " , ' ", ' ',: , '.'" ' 'The following information will need to be.suti~itted before)anuary 13,2013 so that we '. 'n;ay continue the review ofth(! above subject application: ",,' , " " -Habitat Data Report: Pleas'eprovide 12 copi'es of a report :containing ,the, i~formati~nspe~ifiediri Section4+L20DoftheRe'nton MGnicipal'Code. ' " " " _ Independent Secondary Revi~wof Wetland Asses~m~nt: Plea~e provid~ 5 copies 'of.' an ,e~aluation by' an ',' independent ,qualified "pr~fessio~al rega;dr~gthe' , 'I ' ' , , "'."' ,..'.,' ," :, . ' ;. '. ' ,',. ' •• applicant s, analysis and the effectiveness of anypropcisedmitigating measures ' ,or programs,to include any recomniend'ations as app~opriate. This sh<ill be paid , at' the,' applicant's expense;a,nd the, Administrator shall select tile' third~party' reView prqfessionaL","" ,:,,: " ,,',', ",:',," ' _ "Independent Secondary Revie;y of Traffic Study: 'Please provide 5 copies of an': ' ': evaluation by anindependerit qualified prcife5sio~alregarding the applicant'S' " analysis' and, the effectiven~ss~fariy proposedmitigatirig m"easures,orprograms; to ihciude'any re'tommendations' as ,appropriate" This shall be ,paid at the' applicant's expense, arid the ,Adnriinistrator shall sel\!dthe third~p~rty' review professiclnal. ,,' ' ' ',," , ' ' ,,', ' At this time, your'project has been, piaced "onhold"-pendlng' receipt 'of the requested information, ' "',, ' , " .' , ' ". ' ',; . Reritci~ 'City HaU ., 055South Grad'Y:Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa,gov' , . , . . '; " ' " ','c: ' .' .. ' ," .. Given there was a maior holidavdurinq the initial p~bliccomment'period the City will ' "c'onductan additional two-week public commeritperiod once the requested materials' have been submitted. ' , ..' . ", . Please contact ~e at (425) 430'7219 if you have a~y questions" . . . . .' . . '. . . . <-f?~~: " " 'Rjale~immons ,", ' '" "" Senior Planner, Owner(s)', ' Applicant' Party(ies) of Record ,," . ", " , " ' .. Denis Law : ,Mayor "'f' Dec~~~er 16,2013 Department citCommlJ~.lty and' Economic Development . . , ," ,C.E."Chip,"Vincent,Administrator ' • ". _ , • L -• Stephimie"Smith OTAK Inc: '10230 NE points Drive, Suite 400 ,:: .. Kir~land,WA 98033 . ',' ", . , .'" SUBJECT: .. Independent Secondary Review,":Wetlarid Determination . , Reserve atTiffany ParK Preliminary Plat j.LUA13-001572, ECF; pp Dear Ms: Smith: , '. . We would like Otak.lnc. to'do co~duct an independe~tsecondary 'review of th'eWetiand ' Determlmition, preparedbyc. .Gary Schulz (dated October 30: i013), for the Reserve,at 'Tiffany 'Park',PreliminaryPlat," ' . ".',' , . '." . Thefollowi~g concerns'have.been raised'byneighboringproperty owners and,~e w~~ld like the· scope of your independentreview to: " . '. ". . '." . . \ ", - • . Evaluate the accuracy of the delineation and classification of the .wetlands located on, the site; , . .." "" .' " :',', -, ,,: '., ':. ", • 'Evaluate the effectiveness of proposed mitigating'measures.for impacts; . ': "Provide alternative'recommendations for the delineation and classification' of wetlands . . . ~ . , 'as necessary; and, . '. . • 'p'rovidealte,na,tivemitigiltion measures for pmposed Im,pacts as necessary, " . ',' :'. A'S this review would be paid for b'y, the applicant please fo'rward an estimate an'd sccipeofwo~k 'to my'attention prior to p~rforming your review,' ' . , '. , . All subsequent comments'can be forwa'rded, to my attention i'n addition to the applicant: . . . .', . Feerfree 1:0 contact me at (42Si 430 ci219 if you haveany questions or if you 'w~uldlike t~ set up , a time'for a sitevisit,'tharik you. ' . '."'. --, ',.". , :;;:;g~ . 'R~Ja'le Timmons " , j '1 , Senior Plan'ner " 'Ownerls) 'j J 'I I .---" ----. -. --, ,-,-,.~ cc: . " . . Applicant At(a~hmenis' Renton City Hall .• 1 055 S~~th Grady Wa'y, • R.enton, wa~tiingt~n ~8057 • renton~a.go~ . . , . . . ' J ' " '.' .. ' < •••• '\ : Lisa Marie McElrea From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Parties of Record, Rocale Timmons Monday, December 16, 2013 1:23 PM Renate Beedon (renton-opposites@comcast.net); Karan Gill (kgilI20@gmail.com); Larry Gorg (lpgorg@comcast.net); Sheryl (anderson7836@comcast.net); Roenicke (risingr@integrity.com); 'Geoff and Meredith Erickson'; 'Dave Beedon'; 'Adrienne Lawrence'; 'Robin Jones'; Laura Silbernagel (Isilbernagel@comcast.net); Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us); Sandy Bailey (sbailey@novastardev.com); Sandra J Pilat; Susanne Swanson (swansonbsa@gmail.com); Barbi Smith (barbiandlance@live.com) Lisa .Marie McElrea; Wayne Potter (wpotter@novastardev.com) Reserve at Tiffany Park -Hold Notice File No. LUA13-001572 . On Hold letter.pdf The City is placing the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat on hold pending the receipt of additional information by the applicant. You will be receiving a courtesy copy of the attached letter in the mail within a couple of days. Given there was a majar holidav during the initial public comment period the City will conduct an additional two-week public comment period once the requested materials have been submitted, Notice of the start of the additional comment period will be provided in the form of: an additional letter to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property; notices posted in at least three conspicuous places near the property; and/or you will receive (in the mail) a courtesy copy of the off-hold letter provided to the applicant if you are a party of record. You may also utilize this time, during which the project is on hold, to provide comments to City. In addition, I will be working to provide responses to those comments I have already received. Thank you for interest in this project and should you have any questions or would like to speak with me feel free to contact me directly. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov 1 j I'uauc K£ARING: CONSISTtNCY OVERVI(W: Zonlnl/Llnd U •• : e .............. nlal [)ocu"",ntI thai Ev1IllIata th_ 'l"OpOMd "'oInt: Dlvllopmtot RI,ul.tloll1 UQd , ... Project MlUpt\on: Ol1>lrlmlnt of Community. ECI,,"omi. Olvllopm,nt (CEDI _ "',nn!nl Division, Slott!! Floor Rlntao Oty Hall, 1055 SaIl1:ll Grady Way, Rlntan, WA 'IOS1 pyb!!' h ... ln, I. I.nttt!yrly ICh.dyl.d 'prJ.nuJfY 21 jI01i bole" lb. Fleolgn H.,rlnl f"mlne' In BtOlpo CpUDE!! Ch.mbres'! ID:OOAM onth, 7th floor of Renton CIty H.llooltd "'1055 South G"dy WIV. The lubJlo;t site's d"I",.lld Relld.ntl,r S1nel' Flmlly (Camp IISF) Ind 1I. •• ldlnllal Low O.ollty (IILD)on Ibt City 01 Renton Comp"h,nsly, !.Jod Uu Mop 1001 ,,",,''''ntlot. (11.-4).l'1li 1I1.ldlntiall (11.-8, on Ibe Clty'll,ml,. M.p. Eovlrunment.1 (SEPAl Ch.6.l1st The praJIK\ will boI subject to the City's SEPA otdlNnu, IIMC4-1·11GA Ind otN •• pp/lable cod ••• nd rqullllonJ IS I9ProP'\,II •. The Iollowl~8 Milialtion Mea.y .... will likely b. Imposed on I~' p,opoJed p,oJect. Th ...... commlnded Mltl,llIon MOllu,,, Idd"'H proJlct Implcts ~Ol covered I7f tds'ln,codl,"nd rellJllUO/U u died lbove. nr. oppllcont will tH required to d.matlftrotIP that trH, wtre .. tam'" 10 til. ma.rlmlllll fJl'tfnt !eaJjblrl M tM Prr1Ptrty whiff! IhlY Olll growing. TIl, oppI~I will tH r.qulrod 10 proWM ad.quarf mlligorion lor Tro<upottarlon Impact.. COm ...... to .. n \II •• bcwl appilcatkJn _ 1st llUbmlnlltlln wriU,. ro Ao,,"l. n ........ nJ, 5<0"1", 1'11_" aD -P\lnnI,. OM.lon, 1055 $auth G.-.dy Woy, A.nlon, WA '1IQ51, try 5:00 I'M on Decem"'" 10, 1013. Thll ..... IU' I. lisa UI\Utlv.ty sch.dpl.d fo, I pubLic hu,ln. on Jlnu.ry Zl, Z014, II 10:ooAM, Cgundl Ch,mbl". S..-Ih floa" Renlon 01'1 KII, lOSS _IhGrado! Wly, NeIlton.. I' you "'" 'nl"..t~ In ,nll>llln, the hu,"", ~II" canllct Ihl PlonnIn, OM<I"" 10 ensU ... _ IN Momf "" """ been , .. d",du'-<l" (41St 0\)0.7211. """""""IS u.. ... I .... _nod In wt!t .... try tI>t dalllndlcallll '-' you may.un 'PPO"'1 \lit M .... '.nd ptl .. nl your com .... nlJ on the prOpOSIl blroto \hi HoI.,....~. rlyou_ ~UIl!lon. lbout thl. proposol, o,,,,,,h 10 b. ml.t I potty 01 record Ind ,.ctI.1 .d<lltkll1.llnlornr.llon by IIIII!. pto .... _tadlhl pro)oct m.n"er. Anyon. who "bmlU wlltlen e<rmmlnlS will ,ulomltlally becaml I p.tty of '",ord .n. will b. nolilled of .ny dtdslotlOtlthl.projlCl. CONTACT PERSON: PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION II yeu would I1ko to b. mad, 0 porty 01 reccrd te re~el"" lurtller Inform.tlon on tita prllJlO .. d proJ'ct, <;omplttl tha lernr ~nd 'etum 10: Oty 01 Rlnlon, CEO-PI.nnln, OMs.lon, lOSS So. G"dyWly, R.nlo~, WA 98057. N.mt/FlLe Nc.: nffinyplr'< Re .. I'Ie/l.UAU.oolS71, ECF, PP . NAME:,::::~============::-;;;;;;;;;;;;;::::======~= MAIUNGAOORESS.· clty/Sllte}Zlp: ________ _ TEUPHONE NO.: NOTICE OF Ap·Pl1CATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON· SIGNIFICA~CE.MmGATED IDN5-M) A Mall" Appllutlan h.s btln fll.d Ind uCI~d with 1M DI~_nt of Community & Economic D .... lopm.nl {CEO\-PllrinLnl Dlvtllon of Ih' CIty 01 Rlnton. Tht foUowl", btl.fIy dllcrlb .. t!wo .ppllcallon ~nd thl nte .. slry Public Appnl'l.is. DATE Of Nona OF Al'PUCATION: N""""lIIr26,2OU LAND un NUMBER: LUA13-OO1S71, ECF, pp 'IIWEeT D!SCIIIPTlON: The .ppacont Is ,eque.Unc SEPA Envlronml!\~1 IItv1,w .nd p"lImlNlrv PI Ipprov.llor. 98·101 .ubdivl.lon. Th, 21.7 .,,1 ,It, Is loCI ted within Ihe Rllld,n~o~B dWtllln, unk. PII .~ .. {II.. 10nl ... d~sslfk:llion A sm.11 portion 01 Iht lit. lacat,d 'Mthln the 11.-4 lOnln, dullfk:.llon. All proposed loll would I IoClII<I wtthifl tN 11·8 IcnlnCdo .. lllc&tIon. Tht lubltd property Is beltld.t the ""lid end ol5[ 18t11 St borde,e<l1 thl Cod., IIMIr P"lponn. 110", U>t sauthtm "",petty flne ItId Mltee. l$Iond Plpellnt ,10,. thl .utem Prllperty lin Tht 98 loti would .... ult In. d.mlty of 5.86 dwollin. unlll per IC\"'. Lat silU would ",n., from 4,SOO sqUirt I'1!et 8,693 Iqu,,,,'eet witt! In IV."" 101111' 01 5,215. In Iddilion 10 tho 98 lou 10 t",<;\s.", prQPo .. d lor sensltlv, ... 1 Ir ... 'otlnllon, lIornr d"I",,", '«<111, .nd ped.l!rlln connection •. .lcceH 10 the >lte would bl p"'ed from se 181h 'Mth secondory ilCa'H •• ttndlld from 12~th PI SE. n.. $It. Is curnntIy .... ant with 1.305 sl.niflCltll trlo.s In<! d .p~lc.ant I. prop<:ls.ln, 10 "Uln thl ~ppllc:lnl "", JIfOJIOud 10 .. t.ln 102 trttJ. A IIO,",WiI'-' ciellntLon .... uI' PrIlpol-ld which would dlsch .... Into th. oidstl", wltland on thoi JIlt. The Ippllc.nl h ... ubmltl"!. Wetllnd Rep<:l O"lnlle RflJIOrt, T",ffic ImplCI ...... ""1., Geotechnical El1Ilnlltl", Itudy, ~nd In Arb.,11I Ripon with the appliCillic -'<ceHID tho <lie ,""uk! b, pined f,om 5£ 18th St 'Mlh s«ond'",Ia:IH ulendl<l from 124th PI SE. lnlOrmlrtsldent ICUSS IIrnll ... prOpoud ro provId. KUSIIO nell lot. Tht sit, conUolnt \II", ColiII'''' 1 _1I.neIs (WllllndS "- .nd, 0) Inc! one C.telo", 3 _1I,nd (W.tllrod 8\. Th' ~ppliclnt II proposl", wlllllnd buff" ttductlons In Ihl ,mou 5,155 .quI'" feel 10 be mill,. tid wllh bulfer.ddllion.ln the .mount 0155,8411 sqUI ... re.t. !'IIOllCT LOCATION: sw 01 P""taI AYI Sf and l ohnd or Sf 11th SI OPTIONAL D£TEIIMINAnON OF NON·SIGNIFlUoHC!, MmGAttD (DNs.M\: .... 11>0 loR ........... , thl 01'1 .1 Rtnlon r d.tarmlntd Ih'l !llnlncanl .nolronm ... 1I1 Imp'CIS ". unll'""" to tllull from Ihi ptr>poH<! Pf1'ttcl. Th.r.r ....... permlttld "'" the RCW .3.llC.11~, thl al'l 01 Renton I •• ,"" thl Optlon.1 DNS-M p ....... 10 II .. noll"" 0.,,1, DNS-M IIII.eIy tG b. IH., :;::m~:=~=;:,=:=~"===~~~~:..~::.vw:;:;x: 1.11_ Ihl "",In" of Ihl ONS-M. PERMIT Al'l'LItATION DATE: Novtmber 14. 20ll NDTlaOf COMPUTE Al'I'LICAnOfol: APPUCANT!PROJECT CONTACT PEASON: Wlyn. pOUlr, NoV .. III, EML: Wpon.repl\OVlst.rd ... .<om, MAIl: 11215 nnd AYI S. Kent, WA llOU Locallon w~ ... 'ppUclllon moy Bulldln" COnstl"\tctlon ArIIorIsIIleRort. DnInq,RflI'Ort. G...ttchnIr::oI R,port. T"ffIc Imp.oct Statlmlnt/Study, Wt\IOInu Asstssmlnt. II you would like to bt made, Plrty 01 re«lrd to ,"c.1ve lunh., Infornrilion o~ tl\ls proPOsed proJo<t, ~omplete I Iorm and return 10' Cltyol Ronton, CEO-PI.nnln, Division, 1055 50. G,.dyWly. Atnton, WAgB057 NI .... /Ato No.: nffany Pari Reservl/LuAJ.3..001S71, £CF, PI' CERTIFICATION I, P !'Ai) rb hereby certify that ..l1_3L...._ copies ofthe above document· were posted in __ conspicuous places or nearby th ribed property on Date: \l )2klI3 Signe,~~~ __ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING 1 certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that J3,cca...lg X;m rnar S Date. ~ and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the ~d~llti()r ed in the instrument. ub ic in and for the State of Washington ~. '~_:= Notary (print): ___ UUl!.L\1\---I'UlQk!.ll2~ _____ _ ~ cr II P (j Imuc!y O,co WAS""~~'--'-My a ppointment eXPires:'_-LA..:JI~1J~(;.~"-=+"-----,,;;Z:::..q..Li..-J.;I~Q.!...I1--,--___ _ "(.,, ,,' "." ."."" .. -":,, .. -~. "."-.;-:.; , -" .. ~ '.--.... -.---. --.-, _ . .. . . .-• .- Agencies See Attached See attached 300' surrounding property owners Wayne Potter Contact Renton School District #403 Owner Henley USA, LLC Applicant Robert Schauss, Robert Garlough Parties of Record Greg & Jenny Swanson, Gayle Millet Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa McElrea signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for.:tf\t',i: mentioned in the instrument. tary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print):, __ --.:.~"_!v:.J.),C.!, 14q.......,,-y.wOJ&l"-.J. """"".:..<Sl--__________ _ My appointment expires: J .A .. L J v--;;,~ d (1/ d.O r=; Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572, ECF,PP • • AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology"· WDFW -larry Fisher· Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept .• Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region" Duwamish Tribal Office· ·Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program· Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way 5W Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Servo, MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172" Avenue 5E PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· KC Wastewater Treatment Division· Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation" Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers ••• Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 iii Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. "Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: seoaunit@ecv.wa.gov *. *Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing 2460700760 SHINK BRIAN J+LlNDA C 12910 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700170 WILCOCK H EVERED+DONNA M 11830 164TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98056 1431600090 TILLED JARED 12411 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700030 COLSRUD P F 12606 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 9805S 1431600040 WALLS JOSEPH A+AMY M LE 12416 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431500450 PEOPLES J L 15817 124TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431500430 ZHANG LING MIN+MEI FANG LlU 1579 W 68TH AVE VANCOUVER BC V6P2, V4 0 8645520130 KEUM KWANG C+YUN E 3212 SE 20TH CT . RENTON, WA 98058 8645520210 FAWCED DOUGLAS E 3207 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645520340 CORGNATI BRIDGET 3221 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 • 1431700190 FERRIER ROBERT W & DIANA M 12613 SE 158TH RENTON, WA 98058 1431700160 MOLLOY J E 12425 E 158TH RENTON, WA 98058 1431600080 FLINT SCOD 12405 SE 158TH ST RENTON; WA 98058 1431700020 MAYNE TODD R+SHANNON C 12430 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431600030 AMUNDSON DOROTHY L 12410 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431500440 GURNER CAROLYN L 12350 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700650 RUTZER DONALD L+BRENDA J 15701129TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520140 JOHNSON JEFFREY A+DIANNE S 3206 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645520280 INCLAN MANUEL A 3214 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645511010 RICHARDSON PRESLEY H 13056 SE 305TH PL AUBURN, WA 98092 • 1431700180 LATOZKE P L 12605 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431600100 BLACKBURN CATHY 12417 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700040 ROBINSON EVANS N 12612 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700010 BOUCHEZ RAUL ISAAC+CHRISTIAN 12424 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431500460 FISHER MILLARD K 12364 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700660 SWEET NATHAN+DYAMI H 15707 129TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520040 COVARRUBIAS KEIRA & SANTIS 3209 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645520150 MCALISTER DAVID & TANDI 3200 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645520330 . SCHAUSS ROBERT L +KARESA R 3227 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 8645510890 TESFAY HURUY E 1720 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510140 • 8645510790 • 8645530140 ROENICKE WILLIAM L+CAROL R MELONSON MICHAEL K SORN SARI 3112 SE 18TH ST 1701 MONROE AVE SE 3126 SE 17TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 1431700230 1431700070 2460700680 STONE MARGARET E HUSS MICHAEL D+LAURA K BRAILE-OHLSEN TRACI & DAVE 12641 ST 158TH 5T HUSS 12910 5E 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 12636 SE 158TH 5T RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 2460700570 2460700580 2460700550 PETERSON TERRANCE E KIRCHNER SANDRA CONNELIE THOMAS M+SHELLEY L 14231 5E FAIRWOOD BLVD 15652 129TH CT SE 15649 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 2460700600 8645520090 2460700610 VIRGIN WILLIAM F JR SPENCER JENNIFER+RYAN DESMARAIS GERALD M 15642 129TH CT SE 3313 SE 20TH CT 15632 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98055 8645520260 2123059051 8645540100 HARVEY EDWARD N RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 ERICKSON GEOFFREY R+MEREDIT 3226 SE 19TH CT 300 SW 7TH ST 1719 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98058 8645511030 8645510850 8645510900 GARLOUGH ROBERT D FERNEAU DOUGLAS L +LESLIE HABER JAMES E 3203 SE 18TH ST 1723 MONROE AVE 1716 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 8645510910 8645530100 8645530120 DANIELS CHARLES A GATES MICHAEL E+CATHERINE G KATONA B KEVIN+DIANE KECK 37412 174TH AVE SE 1730 OLYMPIA AVE SE 9848 51ST AVE SW AUBURN, WA 98092 RENTON, WA 98058 SEATTLE,WA 98136 8645510800 1431700200 2460700740 CAMPBELL MICHAEL! WRIGHT F L EZELL BRENDA L 1703 MONROE AVE SE 12621 SE 158TH ST 15805 129TH PL 5E RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 1431500290 1431700050 8645520060 RALPH JEFFREY L &FRANCINE V RIDDLE L R COLLODI FLORIO+PATRICIA 12359 SE 158TH ST 12620 SE 158TH ST 3709 JONES AVE NE RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98056 8645540170 8645540180 8645520290 CABADING ANTONIO JR CHING RONALD M C DEPUSOY JOVENCIO M 3605 SE 18TH CT 4802 13lST ST SW 3208 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 MUKILTEO, WA 98275 RENTON, WA 98058 8645540130 MEYER ROBERT G REVOCABLE LI 1727 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645540060 SCHUG KENNETH 2210 MONTEREY CT SE RENTON, WA 98055 8645530010 RAMIREZ LAZARO VIZCARRA+MARIA DEL SOCCORRO 3311 SE 17TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700750 ACUARIO WILSON G 12918 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700690 TRAN BINH+KIM THUC 12906 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98178 8645520080 SWANSON SUSANNE L+ROBERT W 3307 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540220 KOTILA LARRY P 3622 19TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520110 HAUGE KENNETH A 3302 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645520250 AHLBECK JAY G 3328 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645540080 OCHO ALBERT+SHARON L 1711 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 • 8645540330 YOUNGQUIST EVAN P+LANISSA J 1720 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530070 HERNANDEZ JAVIER G+BARTLETI- GARCIA KRISTINA 1727 OLYMPIC AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530020 SHERRICK RUSSELLJ+JANET M 3317 SE 17TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 2460700710 LEONARD ERIC C 12901 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 1431600020 CLAYTON EDWARD 12404 SE 158TH RENTON, WA 98058 8645540240 HAYES ALBERT TERAN 3615 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540250 , BISCONER STACY M+LEONARD W 3611 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 2460700490 GARR BOBBY L & MARY H 15607 129TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98056 8645540160 RIVERA/QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540340 PHETSADA BOONPING+ELlZABETH 1714 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 • 8645510880 WALTON ANNIE T+TRUONG LAC M 1724 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510940 WOLDESELASSIE KITAW M 1702 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700240 LEONARD JEFFREY 12647 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700080 DELPINO J G 12644 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 2460700590 VISKER NICK H 15648 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520100 BRINES DONAVEN 3308 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 2460700500 VAN INGEN STEPHEN M+YOLANDA 15625 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520200 JEFFERS GEORGE D R+THELMA S 3201 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645511040 BAKER EDWARD L & SUSAN P 3209 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 8645510830 JOHNSON MICHAEL A 1715 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 -------------~ 8645510820 ABHOLD GERALD F 1711 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 2460700770 LYNN STEVEN 12904 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700060 BYRON J E 12628 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645511050 VENIEGAS JORGE S 3215 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645510130 ANDERSON SHERYL L 1727 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530090 TRAXINGER BRETT+BROT 1736 OLYMPIA AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510920 JARAMILLO FRANK L 1708 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 8645540050 WHITE STEVEN M+KIM A 1615 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700130 ZELENKA JONATHAN E 12808 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700720 JAKSICH DANILO M+HELGA R 12905 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 • 8645510220 JOHNSON LONNIE M+ TERESA R 3138 SE 17TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 1431700220 • BENSON ANDREAS THOMAS+DONNA 12633 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700670 TRAN TIMOTHY H+HUYNH SUNNY 455 BRONSON WAY SE RENTON, WA 98056 8645540120 BEEDON DAVID EUGENE 1725 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 2123059061 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300SW 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645530080 STRICKLAND KENNETH 1742 OLYMPIA AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530110 COX JAMES J 1724 OLYMPIA AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 2123059040 SEATTLE CITY OF SPU-WTR PO BOX 34018 SEATTLE,WA 98124 1431700210 MOORE ROBERT A 12627 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700730 OBRIEN RICHARD LEE 12909 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 8645510930 MOLALIGN ATALELEGN K 1704 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700090 VIGILIA RUFINO A JR 12652 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 8645540190 SIENKIEWICZ HENRYK D 1807 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510860 LUU LOANG+LAN THI NGUYEN ET AL 1732 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510840 JONSON JASON+CLARIZZA 1719 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510810 REED DAVID N + BARBARA A 5610 NE 10TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 8645530130 POZDNYAKOV IGOR 292 LESLIE CT #A MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 98043 1431700140 TRAN CHAN TRUC 12816 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700110 BURCKHARD RAYMOND M+lYNN L 12666 158TH ST SE RENTON, WA 98058 2460700700 GOOD KIMBERLY J+TERENCE D 12902 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 ------------- ------------~ 1431600010 • 2460700560 • 2460700540 BRADLEY J 0 APELU SOMMER K+TAGIiLiMA F CLAUSSEN BARRY P+BARBARA A PO BOX 59266 15653 129TH CT SE 15645 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98055 2460700530 2123059062 8645520070 SUNDNES PETER J+MARY L SEATILE CITY OF SPU-WTR SCHAEFER PHILLIP & TAMMY 15641129TH CT SE PO BOX 34018 3301 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 SEATILE, WA 98124 RENTON, WA 98058 8645520120 8645520230 8645520220 ARRIGONI WILLIAM JOHN GARCIA JAIME MCPHERSON WARREN 0 3218 SE 20TH CT 3219 SE 19TH CT 3213 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98055 2123059044 8645540150 8645540140 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 SHAMATAYLO GENNADIY NGUYEN DUNG VAN+HUONG 300 SW 7TH ST 3614 SE 18TH CT 3620 SE 18TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 8645540090 8645510870 8645540070 FRISCH DOUGLAS A BERHANE TEKLE+TESFAY YORDAN IKUTAGARY K 1717 PIERCE AVE SE 1728 MONROE AVE SE 1709 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 8645530060 8645530050 8645530030 WINDSOR KEVIN R+ELlZABETH K BINDAS JOHN A+LAURA A LINDSEY STEPHEN R+MELODINA 1721 OLYMPIA AVE SE 1711 OLYMPIA AVE SE 3323 SE 17TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 8645530040 1431700150 1431700250 FROME CLIFF G+JOAN M STRETCH PAUL J TEAGUE BRIAN G 3327 SE 17TH ST 12824 SE 158TH ST 12652 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 1431700120 2460700520 2460700510 FULTON BLAKE WALSH MARY E+JONES WILSON E BURGESS STANLEY R 12672 SE 158TH ST 15635 129TH CT SE 15629 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98055 8645540230 8645540210 8645520240 OWENS BARBARA M JONES ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L BOND HARRY L 3619 SE 19TH CT 3624 SE 19TH CT 20751 SE 295TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 KENT, WA 98042 8645540200 8645520270 8645520300 YORK DON B+MANUELLA CARINO PAMELA JEAN RIVERA RICHARD G 3628 SE 19TH CT 3220 SE 19TH CT 3202 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 8645520310 ROSEL ESPERIDION M+BEVERLY 3116 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645510210 TO PHEAP+NHEP YAN 3121SE 17TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 1431700100 FLOTH PROPERTIES LLC 902 198TH AVE E LAKE TAPPS, WA 98391 8645520050 EDSON CHRIS+JANN C 3215 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540000 8645540110 LAWRENCE LEE EDWARD 1721 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 • 8645540350 VELOTIA PATRICK E 1708 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510230 MCCRIMMON CLAUDE 3132 SE 17TH CT· RENTON, WA 98058 1431500470 BRUE CHRISTOPHER S+MARIELLE M 15804 124TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645511020 GILL GURMIT S+MOHINDER K 19314 138TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700440 HART SIMONE M 12669 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 • 8645540360 MOSKALENKO TIMOFEY+NADEZHDA 1702 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700450 SELLERS MARGARET L 12805 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 2123059054 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645540260 MAKOWICHUK WESLIE W 3607 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 - ----------------------------- • • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: November 26, 2013 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: Tiffany Park Reserve PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 98-lot subdivision. The 21.7 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification A smart portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. Ail proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 98 lots would result in a density of 5.86 dwelling units per acre. lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,693 square feet with an average lot size of 5,215. In addition to the 98 lots 10 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, and pedestrian connections. Access to the site would be' gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th PI SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant is proposing to retain the applicant has proposed to retain 102 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into the existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and an Arborist Report with the application. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th 5t with secondary access extended from 124th PI 5E. Internal residential access streets are proposed to provide access to each lot. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, DJ and one Category 3 wetland (Wetland B). The applicant is proposing wetland buffer reductions in the amount 5,155 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of 55,849 square feet. PROJECT LOCATION: 5W of Pierce Ave 5E and E of end of SE 18th St 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.ll0, the City of Renton is using the Optional ONS·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 (ONS-MJ. A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance ohhe DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: November 14, 2013 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 26, 2013 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Wayne Potter, Novastar, EMl: wpotter@novastardev.com, MAIL: 18215 72nd Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: ! -Location where application may Environmental (SEPAl Review, Preliminary Plat Approval Building, Construction Arborlst Report, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Impact Statement/Study. Wetlands 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.: Tiffany Park Reserve/lUA13-001Sn, ECF, PP NAME: ____________________________________ ~ ________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ City/State/Zip: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: _____________ _ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • 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 (CEO) -Planning DivIsion, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 23, 2014 before the Renton Hearing ExamIner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at lOSS South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (Comp RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential 4 (R-4) and Residential 8 (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPAl Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC4-2-110A 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 will be required to demonstrate that trees were retained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. The applicant will be required to provide adequate mitigation for Transportation Impacts, Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on December 10, 2013. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 23, 2014, at 10:00AM, Coundl 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: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAlliNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to 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.: Tiffany Park Reserve/LUA13-0015n, ECF, PP NAME: ______________________________________________________________ _ . MAILING ADDRESS: _____________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________________ __ Lisa Marie McElrea From: Sent: To: Cc: • Lisa Marie McElrea Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:26 AM 'na ncy. rawls@rentonschools.us' Rocale Timmons • Subject: Attachments: City of Renton -Notice of New Preliminary Plat -Tiffany Park Reserve School Letter13-001S72.docx; NOA 13-001S72.pdf Good morning Nancy, Attached please find a notice of application for a new preliminary plat in Renton and a request for school-related information. Please review the school letter and send requested info to Senior Planner Rocale Timmons (rtimmons@rentonwa.gov) by December 10, 2013. We can also accept via mail to City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 or via fax at (425) 430-7300. Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Rocale, Senior Planner at (425) 430-7219. Best, Lisa McElrea, Planning Secretary City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 10555 Grady Way 16th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6578 I Fax: 425.430.7300 I Imcelrea@rentonwa.gov .Ii Please consider the environment before printing this email 1 • November 26, 2013 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Tiffany Park Reserve LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP • The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a Preliminary Plat located at SW of Pierce Ave SE and E of end of SE 18th 51. Please see the attached 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 December 10, 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) 430-7219. Enclosure . ','. :-: .. o ...... '. ... ... ' . " .'0 Denis Law', ' '. ~ayo,., , ,November2S, 2013 .' .' :.' . . .. Wayn'epott'er. . -No'va~tar D'ev:lnc . , 18215 nnd Ave S ' Kent, WA 98032 Department of Commu~itYand Economic Develop,ment ,,' '. CEXhip"Vincent, Administrator, " ," ," , ( " '0 ~ . • Subject:, 'Noi:ice'~fConipl~teApplicatiori ' :',' • .'>-'Reserve at Tiffany Park,LUA13-001572;Eq; pp," o "., ,', .J." , , , DearMr, Potter: '-.. , "', ,The ~Ianriing.pivision of theC;tyof' R,enton, has 'determined that the subject application: is complete accordin'g to submittal requirements and, therefore,isaccept~d for review. '.', ',' . . -." . " . , . '. .... It is tentatively scheduled for consider~tionbythe Environmental Review Committee on be.cembej 23, 2013. Prior to that review, you will be notified ifany additional, informatio~ is required to cbntinueprocessing your, application. ' , , ' " . .,,' .. ' .',. , -' .. ::' .. " 'In addition,this matter is'tentatively sCheduled for aPublicHearing on Jariua~y 23,2014 at' iO:OOAM; CouncilChambers>Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall,10SS South Grady Way,~ 'Renton. Th~ appiicant orre~~ese~tathie(s) ofthe applicantarerequinid to be pr~:Sent at~ the putilic hearing,A copy of the staff report will be mailed, to you prior totl)e sctiedul,ed " hearing.' ,'Pleasecbntaet me at(42S) 430-7219 if you have aiwquestions.' " , " , ~ , , , Sincerely, ' ., ',' ~"""':"'" "7)' ,,"'" " """. :,'" '~A'~ :'~"':.A "A'A"." " -' ~ ~ '," ',' .','" ,', .',' ' '. , ,," ,,', " "", ',:,' '. ,,' ,'Rocale Timmons SeniorPlanner ' . ) ',-. cc: ' Renton School District/ Owner(s) . ii'enley USA lLC/Applicant ' , " " , " " " " , , ' Robert Scha.uss, Rob.e~ G~~!o~'gh;.G,re"g ~ Jenny Swan~'on I Partv(ies) .of Record' : Renton City Hall,. 1055 'S~uth Grady Way ,.,Renton,Washington 98057. r~ntonwa,go~, ". '. .... ' '. ,,' .', 0 ~ --------------------= DEPARTMENT OF COM.NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A; SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE: Project Nome: .owner: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: November 18; 2014 Reserve at TIffany Park Preliminary Plat Renton School District; 300 SW 7'" St; Renton, WA 98055 Henley USA LlC:, IUClO Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004 Wayne Potter; Novastar Development, Inc.; 18215 nnd Ave 5; Kent, WA 9S032 LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE Rocale TImmons, Senior Planner The applicant has submitted a proposal requesting 5EPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdlylsion (96 lots with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The 21.66 acre site Is located within the Resldential-S dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small. portion of the site is iocated within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-S zone. The subject property Is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and the Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. rhe 97 lots would result In a density no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, ·access, pedestrian connections, and open space Including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary lO-feet In width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18'" 5t with secondary access extended from 124'" Place SE. The site Is currently vacant with 1;305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees (188 trees with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact AnalYSiS, Geotechnical Engineering study, ArborlstReport, Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant Is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE lSth St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. 4905 5E 2nd Place/355 Field Place SE/4921 SE 2nd Place/312 Field PI SE/5OO1 SE 2nd Place/SOB SE 2nd Place/14217 5E 136th 5t 21.66 acres Project Lacatlon Map HEX REPORT FINAL City of Renton.Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Piat Repoit.& RecammendCltioii CAE Hearing November 18, ,. B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit1: HEX Repor:t Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plat Plan (dated July 16,2014) Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and land Clearing Plan (dated July 16,2014) Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Exhibit 5: Revised Wetland Determination and Response letter (dated June 3,2014) Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment (dated January 16, 2014) Exhibit 7: GeotechniCal Report (dated September 28, 2012) Exhibit 8: Drainage Report (dated February 24, 2014) Exhibit 9; Traffic Impact Ana!ysls (dated April 23, 2014) Exhibit 10: Public Comment letters: 10.1~10.70 Exhibit 11: Alternative Tree Cutting. and land Clearing Plan.(August 29, 2014) Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Exhibit 13: Independent,Secondary ~evlew -Traffic Exhibit 14: Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (April 3, 2014) Exhibit 15: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9,2014) Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated February 11, 2014) Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated June 12, 2014) Exhibit 18: la.ndscape Plan (dated July 16, 2014) Exhibit 19: Transportation Concl,lrrency Approval Exhibit 20: Reriton Trails and Bikeways Map Exhibit 21: EnvironmentReview Committee (ERe) Staff report Exhibit 22: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (dated September 22, 2014) Exhibit 23: Public Meeting fljotice Exhibit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits , C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: Renton School District 300 SW7'" St Renton, WA 98055 Page 20f34 2. Zoning Designation: Residential-.8 dulac (R-li); Residential-4 dulac (R-4); 3. Comprehensive Plan land Use Designation: Resldential'Slngle Family (RSF); Ilesidentiallow Density (RlD) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Single Family Residential (RCB zane) b. East: Single Family Residential (R-4 and R-8zane) HEX REPORT FINAL City of Renton Department Preliminary Plat Report & Recommendation RESERVE CAE Hearing Date: November 18, Page 3 of34 c. South: Single Family ResidentialfR-B zone) d. WesJ:: Single FC1mlly Resldent/ai (R-B zone) 6. Access: Access to the site would bega,lned from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124,h ,Place SE. 7. Site Area: 21;66 acres I D. HISTORICAl/BACKGROUND: Action' Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation I E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 5099 5100 1961 Date 11/01/04 11/01/04 , 6/i7/1~62 a. Water: This site Is located In the City of Reriton water service boundary. There Is an existing 8- Inch water main stubbed to the site In SE 20th Courti In SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located In the 59O-water preSSure lone and static pressure In the area ranges from 65-8~ pSi. b. Sewer: The site Is located In the City of Renton sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main In SE18th Street. c. SurfacelStorm Water: There is an existing conveyance system InSE 18th St. 2 •. Streets: There are partial street Improvements existing along SE 18,h St and 124,h Place SE. 3., Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 LanCiUse Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose al)d Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use'Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards d. Section 4-2-115: Residential Design and Open Space Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulatlo':'s and Overiay Districts a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations ' 3. Chapter 4 Property DevelOPment Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5; Chapter 7 SUlJdlvislon Regulations 6. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 7. Chapter 11 Definitions HEX REPORT FINAL City 01 Renton Department 01 CO&lty & Economic Deilelopment RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU1f!NARY PLAT Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Elenient 2. Transportation Element 3. Community Design Elem!!nt I H. FINDINGS OF FACT: pr.Qty Plat Report & Recommendation LUA13-001572, PP,ECF, CAE Page4of3~ 1. The applicant requested SEPA Environmental Review and Prelirrilnary Plat approval for a 98-lot subdivision on November 14, 2013. The Planning Division of the City of Re~ton accepted the above master application for review on November ~5, 2013 and comrnen,ced a two week public comment period. 2. During our review, staff determined additional information was necessary in order to p'roceed. On December 16, 2013 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a Habitat Data Report and Independent Secondary Review of the provided Critical Area Report and Traf'flc Study. 3. A revised plat plan was submitted to the City on March 3, 2014. However, the 'applicant didn't submit all necessary documentation to have the project taken off hold. 'The March 3, 2014 plat plan/submittal package reflected a change from a proposed detention pond to a drainage vault, a revised lot layout/internal circulation pattern, and a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter. 4. On July 16, 2014, the applicant sllbmltted a revised proposal induding a request for SEPA ' Environmental Review, Preliminary Plat, and Critical Area Exemption for a 97-lot subdivision (Exhibit 2). ' 5. On July 25, 2014 the project was taken off hold and a second courtesy two-week public comment period commenced and was held open until August 8, 2014. 6. However, during our review of the July 16, 2014 plat staff determined additional Information was necessary In order to proceed. On August 20, 2014 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a , revised Tree Protection Plan/ Arborist Report and Tree Retention Plan which demonstrated the retention of at least 30% of the significant trees on site. 7. The applicant submitted all necessary documentation and on September 5, 2014 the project was taken off hold. Submittals Included an Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan demonstrating that , the retention of at least 30% of the significant trees on site would result in the loss of one lot for a total of.96 lots (Exhibit 11). 8. As Identified In findings of fact 1-7 above, the project complies with the l2O-day review period. 9. Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revise!! submittal materials, staff has utilized the 97- lot plat plan dated July 16, 2014 (Exhibit 2) to base Its recommendation to the Hearing Examiner with conditions reflecting the Alternative Tree Cutting arid Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 11). ' 10., The applicant has submitted the fo!lowing reports for review and analysis in support of the Jult 16, 2014 plat plan: Wetland Report (Exhibit 5), Drainage Report (Exhibit 8), Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 9), GeotechniCal Engineering study (Exhibit 7), Tree Protectlon/Arborist Report (Exhibit 4), arid Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6). ' ' , 11. Additionally the following reports have been provided by the applicant for review and analysis: , Alternative Tree Cutting arid Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 11), Independent Secondary Review -Traffic (Exhibit 13), Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (Exhibit 14), Supplemental Independent Secondary Review:'" Wetland (Exhibit 15), Habitat Assessment Technlc,al Memorandums (Exhibit 16 and 17). ' HEX REPORT FINAL City of Renton Depart/pent of Colnlty & EconomlcDevel9pment RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREll INARY PlAT Hearing Date; November 18, 2014 p.inal)l Plat Report & R.ecommeilddtlon LUA13-00l57Z, PP,.ECF, CAE ~ageSof34 12. The subject site Is situated af the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern propertyiine and consists of four tax parcels (#212304-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9154, and 212305~9061). 13. The 21.66 acre site Is located within the Residehtlal-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small' portion of the site Is located within the R-4 zoning classification. The. subject site Is designated ResidentialSlngle Family and Residential Low Density on the.CltYsComprehensivePlan Map. 14. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. Therefore R-8 development standards, pursuant to RMC '4-2-110A, have been used to evaluate the proposed project (see Finding 35.2, Compliance with the Un~erlylng Zoning Classification). 15. The site Is entirely surrounded by existing single family residences with an average lot size of approximately 8,600 square feet. The surrounding platting pattern Is In-keeping with the development standards of the less dense R-4 zoning classification (RMC 4-2-110A). 16. The site is unique In shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first Is located In'the northwest corner ohlle site at the dead·end of SE 18th St. The second road stub Is located to the southwest of the site on the southern side of th.e Cedar River Pipeline at the dead-end of 124th Place SE. 17. The applicant is proposing to extend both road stubs Into the site in order to provide public access and circulation. Internal residential access streets and/or shared driveways are proposed to provide access to each lot throughout the proposed subdivision. 18. The proposed 9710tso'or the 96 lot alternative, would result In a density of no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square .feetto 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the proposed single family lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space Including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10-feet in width. 19. The total area for all sensitive areas and native/passive open space proposed to be prOVided Is 5.28 acres, approximately 24.4% of the site. 20. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 Significant trees and a series of existing pedestrian trails. The July 16, 2014 submittal indicated the applicant proposed to retain 147 trees (Exhibit 3). However, the Alternative Tree Clltting and Land Clearing Plan, su~mitted on August 29, 2014 depicted the retention of 188 trees (Exhibit 11). 21, The site contains three category 2 'wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (WetlandB and E). The applicant Is proposing wetland buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,000 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount.of approximately 48,000 square feet. The applicant is also requesting a Critical Area Exempti.on for the extension of SE 18th St through a small portion (14 sf) of the buffer associated with Wetland E. 22. The site topography can best be characterized as sloping down to the west with gentle slope inclinations with a total vertical relief of 50 feet. The site generally slopes from east to west ·from elevation 456 to 398. The project site has an average slope between 10% and 15% with a small isolated area containing 25% slopes. 23. The applicant is proposing the use of rockeries and "lock and load" retaining walls throughout the site ranging from 4-21 feet in height. The applicant has not provided elevations of proposed retaining walls. 24. The subject site Is located In Zone, 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. The applicant is proposing excavation estimated at 70,060 cubic yards. The on-site stripping is anticipated to be 22,000 cubic yards which would either be redistributed on site or exported off site If the solis cannot ~e used. HEX REPORT FINAL 1 City 0/ Renton Department 0/ totAnity& Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUJffNARY PLAT Hearing Date:'November 18, 2014 p.nary Plat Report 8. Recommendotion .' LUAl3-D01572, PP, ECF,CAE 25. The subject property Is currently owned by the Renton School District. In 2oi3 the Renton School Districtapprol/ed a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the applicant (Henley USA, LLCj to seli the subject site. The agreement authorizes the applicant to assess the property'ssuitalilllty for the proposed development anl! obtain the necessary approvals In compliance with the City of Renton development regulations. ' . 26 The foliollJlngtableldentifies proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-97' Lot II Lot Size Approx. Avg; Approx. Lot,lI Lot Size ApproX. Approx. (sf] Width Depth (sfl Avg. W!dth Depth Min: l/,sOO'f MIn: SO feet Min: 65 feet ' Min: 4,500 SF Mln:S°fe·t Mln:6Sfeet loU 5,000 50feet lOOfeet Lot SO 4,500 50feet 90feet Lot 2 5,000 ,50feet 100feet LotSl 5,400 60feet 90feet Lot 3 5,000 50feet lOOfeet LO,tS2 5,400 60feet 90feet Lot 4 5,000 50feet 100feet Lot 53 4,615 51 feet '90feet LotS 5;000 50feet 100 feet Lot 54 4,758 53 feet 90feet Lot 6 5,000 50feet l00feet Lot 55 4,755 53feet 90/eet Lot 7 6,183 51 feet l00/~et Lot56 4,762 53feet '90feet LotB 6,085 70/eet 103 feet Lot 57 5,644 61 feet 92/eet Lot 9 5,308 5l1eet 110 feet LotSB 5,518 62 feet B9feet Lot 10 6,875 50/eet 107/eet Lot 59 4,912 55/eet B9feet LotH 4,718 50/eet 50/eet Lot 60 5,718 64/eet 89/eet Lot 12 7,461 5Sfeet 90feet Lot 61 5,348 59feet 90feet Lotl3 5,574 50feet 101 feet Lot 62 4,740 52 feet ,90feet Lot 14 6,259 30' feet 121 feet Lot 63 4,740 52 feet 90/eet Lot IS 7,770 50feet 101feet Lot 64 4,577 50feet 90 feet Lotlt; 5,500 50feet 113 feet Lot 65 5,400 60feet 90feet Lot 17 5,551 32' feet 99feet Lot 66 4,500 50feet 90feet LotlB 6,568 '65feet 100feet Lot 67 .4,500 50/eet 90/eet Lot 19 5,000 45/eet lOOfeet, Lot6B 4,500 50feet. 90feet Lot 20 5,000 50feet lOO/eet Lot 69 5,384 59 feet 90feet Lot21 6,490 72feet l06feet Lot 70 5,456 60!eet 90feet Lot22, 6,214 54 feet 100feet Lot7l .5,000 50feet lOfeet Lot 23 5,213 52 feet 100feet Lot 72 .. 5,000 50feet lOOfeet Lot 24 5,213 52/eet l00feet Lot 73 ,5,381 53feet lOOfeet Lot 25 5,730 57/eet, lOO/eet Lot 74 5,687 56feet lOOfeet Lot 26 5,213 52 feet lOOfeet Lot 75 7,218 72ieet lOO/eet HEX REPORT FINAL City of Renton Deportment of eo,a"ity & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUlIIfk4RY PlAT 'Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Lot 27 S,730 S7/eet 100/eet Lot 28 S,173 S1/eet 100/eet Lot 29 S,006 SO/eet loo/eet Lot 30 S,OOO SO/eet, loo/eet Lot 31 S,OOO SO/eet 100/eet Lot 32 5,000 SO/eet 100/eet Lot 33 5,000 50/eet loo/eet Lot 34 5,000 50/eet 100/eet Lot 35 5,000 50/eet 100/eet Lot 36 5,000 50/eet loo/eet Lot 37 5,102 SO/eet 110/eet Lot 38 5,835 20,*/eet 109/eet Lot 39 5,111 50/eet loo/eet Lot 40 8,335 60/eet 94/eet Lot 41 6,353 55/eet 90/eet Lot 42 6,648 Unknown Unknown Lot 43 -4,750 50/eet 95/eet Lot 44 5,614 61/eet 95/eet Lot 45 5,000 SO/eet loo/eet Lot 46 6,063 60/eet 100/eet Lot47 5,988 57/eet 106/eet Lot 48 5,311 61/eet 90/eet Lot 49 4,500 50feet 90/eet Lot 76 Lot 77 Lot 78 Lot 79 LotBO L,ot8l Lot 82 LotB3 Lot 84 Lot8? Lot 86 Lot 87 LotBB Lot 89 Lot 90 Lot 91 Lat92 Lot 93 Lot 94 Lot9S Lot 96 Lot 97 prenory Plot Report & Recommendation LUA13-00lS7Z, PP, 'ECF, CAE Page 7 of34 6,70S 67/eet loo/eet S,OOO SO/eet loo/eet S,OOO SO/eet loo/eet 8,4S6 SO/eet loo/eet 5,000 50/eet lOO/eet S,OOO SO/eet 100/eet 5,000 SO/eet loo/eet 4,899 50/eet 98/eet ,5,000 50/eet 100/eet 5,000 SO/eet 100/eet 5,000 50/eet loo/eet S,OOO 50/eet loo/eet 5,134 -50/eet 102/eet 5,463 50/eet 108/eet 5,866 51/eet 115feet 6,365 60/eet 100/eet 5,000 50/eet loo/eet , 5,000 SO/eet loo/eet 5,000 SO/eet loo/eet 5,000 50/eet loo/eet 5,000 50feer loo/eet 5,000 50/eet loo/eet *Frontage lot width. 27. The applicant submitted a conceptual landscape plan which includes the installation of street trees within a pfoposed 8-foot planter along the frontage cif Internal roads (Exhibit 18). Additional landscape vegetation Is Proposed to be planted within open space Tracts A, 0, F, H, I, J, L and enhanced wetland buffers. 28. A drainage plan and drainage repcirt has been submitted with the application (Exhibit 8). The report addre,sses compliance with 2()()9 King County SurfaceWater Manual anc! City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. 29. Staff received several public comment letters/emails (Exhibit 10.0 ~ 10.70). Those comments related to the pro~able environinentaliinpacts were addressed In the Environment Review Committee (ERC) ,staff report (Exhibit 2.1) including: Earth/Soils, Wetlands, Stormwater, Goundwater; Plants, Wildlife, Noise, Aesthetics; and Transportation. Findings Included in this report affirm those findings discussed In the ERC ,Staff report and along with non-SEPA concerns raised by public. The non-SEPA concerns raised by Parties of Interest include, but are not limited to the foliowing: subdivision regulatl~n compliance, loning, permitted uses, density, public notice, construction mitigation/traffic control, HEX REPORT FINAL --------------------------------------- City,of Renton Deportment of toanliy & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU'1fffNARY PLAT Hearing Date: November18, 2014 p.nary plot Report & ,Recommendation LUAl3-00l572, 'PP,-ECF,CAE Page8of34 landscaping, retaining walls, school capacity, access, parking, retaining walls, lot standards/dimensions, encroachments, setbacks, utilities; public serv.ices, and hOrne sizes. 30. Comments received question the adequacy of public notice; and comment period tlmelines(Exhlblt , , 10.3,7',8,10, 11,14, 16, 18, 28, 31, 43}. On November 26,2013 senilce ofthe Notice Of Application was provided by mailing and a two w,ee~ 'comment period was held according to Renton Municipal ,code (Exhibit 24). Additionally, the notice was posted In at least 3 conspicuous places surrounding the subject site, (Exhiblt:24). On July :2S, 2014 a second service of the Notice of Application/Off Hold Notice w.as provi~ed ~y mailing (Exhibit 24) anda second courtesy two week comment period was held. Additionally, the notice was posted In at least 10 conspicuous places ,surrounding the subject site (Exhibit 211). 31. Additionally, two community m,eetlngs, regarding the proposed project, have been held at Tiffany Park Elementary. The first meeting, on February 6, 2014, was organized and facilitated, bycommu!1lty members. City staff attended the first meeting as a guest on the agenda and provided Information on the public process. The second meeting was organized and facilitated by the City on September 9, 2014. Topics of discussion Included a project overview, a description of the public process, and provided information on how to participate In the public process (Exhibit 23). 32. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on September 22, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee Issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M) for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 22). The DNS-M Included 11 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on September 2S, 2014 and ended on October 10, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Calrncross & Hempelmann on behalf of Henley USA, llC. 3~. Based on an analysis of probalJle Impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) Issued the following mitigation measures with the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance jExhlbit 22}: -1. All earthwork performed, implem,ented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.; dated September 28, 2012. 2. The final drainage report shall include a more detailed downstream analysis. Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2.1, a level 2 downstream analysis for" mile from the project site Is required. The applicant should note that level 3 flow control could be required as part of the level 2 d()wnstre,am analysis. A revised final drainage report and assoCiated plans, based on the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by'the City of Renton,ls required to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and Implement, any'recommended mitigation measures included in the revised Drainage Report. 3. The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are conSidered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critica,l areas and their associated buffers. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager,tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The Inspection/monitoring reports shall IdentifY any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. HEX REPORT FINAL 'CIty o/Renton Department oj eo,&,ity & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUBAAy PlAT Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 p,.nalJf Plat Report & Rec.omm~ndatlon LUA13"{}OJ572, PP, ECF, ,CAE Page 9 of 34 The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and Implement, any recommended mitigation measures Included In the Inspection reports. ' 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, which will address iternilnabatement during project grading and site irT)proveQlents, The vermin abatement mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permltapproval. The applicant shall also, be required to comply and Implement any recommended mitigation according to an approved plan, ' , 6. A minimum 15-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided. The IS-feet would allow for the offset of tree planting, as opposed to a, linear tree line, Which would create a more natural buffer In keeping with the existing character of the site. Such landscaping or landscape plus fencing shall be, at minimum, 6-feet high at maturity and at least 50% sight-cibscurlng. Existing mature trees are located within this 1S foot buffer should be maintain and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborlst that such tree Is dead, diseased, ,or dangerous. 7. The applicant shall Install a STOP sign with a stoplinein thermoplastic on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave SE to SE 18th St in order to address the sight distance concerns at this Intersection prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to ,final construction permit review prior to construction permit Issuance. 8. The applicant shan submit a revised TIA Including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE 158th St Intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction permits. The applicant sha'il also be required to comply with, and Implement, any recommended mitigation measures'lnciuded In the revised TIA. 9. The applicant shall Install directional Information sigriage (white letters on green background) atS Puget Drive and i16th Ave SE facing west prior to Final Plat approval. The signs shall read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. The final design Is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit Issuance. 10. An additional CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) warning sign with a lSMPH advisorY speed shall be Installed by the applicant on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th st (east of Beacon Way SE). The final design Is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit Issuance. 11. The applicant shall provide a marked crossV'alk at the Intersection of SE 18th St and lake Youngs Way SE prior to Final Plat approval. The final design Is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit Issuance. 34. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to IdentifY and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained In the offiCial file, and the essence of the comments have been Incorporated Into, the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 35. The proposal requires Preliminary Plat Review. The following table contains project elements Intended to comply with S~bdivl,sion Regulaticlns, as outlined In, RMC 4-7. PREUMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PlAN: HEX REPORT FINAL City orRenton Department of ean&,,1y & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU~ARY PLAT pr.diji Plat Report & RecommendatIon LUAl3-00157Zi PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November .18,2014 Page 10 of 34 The site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Pian Land Use Map. All proposed lots would be located within the RSF land lise designation. Therefore RSF land use policies, In addition to transportation and community design policies, have been used to evaluate the proposed. project. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Transportation and Community Design Elenient policies If all conditions of approval are complied with: Compliant If Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If MItigation Measures and Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval are Met HEX REPORT FINAL PollcV lU-147. Net development densities should .fall within a.range of 4.0. to 8.0 dweUing ." -. -. '". --,. --- --. units per acre In Residential Single Family Neighborhoods. Policy LU~l48. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on In'fill parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) In single-family designations. Allow a reduction on lot size to 4,500 square 'feet on parcels grE1ater than one acre to create an Incentive for aggregation' of land: The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density In the deSignation, but to provide flexibility in subdivision/plat desigri and facilitate development within the allowed density range. Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths In re.sidential neighborhoods.should be arranged as an'interconnecting network that serves local traffic and facilitates pedestrian circulation.' Objective CD-A: The City's unique natural features, including land form, vegetation, lakeshore, river, creeks and streams, and wetlands should be protected and enhanced as opportunities.arise. Staff Comment: Unique natural features on site Include wetlands and large stands of trees. Based on the provided tree Inventory, 1,305 trees are located on the subject site. The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres) and would be located in {Tracts 8, G, K, & .M}. The existing tree canopy and wetlands on site contribute to the City's physical and aesthetic character,environment, open space, and Wildlife habitat. SEPA mitigation measures and conditions of approval are recommended in order to protect and enhance. natural features on site (see additional discussion within the ERC Report/Exhibit 21, underFinding 35.4 Critical Areas and Finding 35.5, Community Assets). Policy CD-i. Integrate development into natural areas by clustering development and/or adjusting site plans to preserve wetlands, steep slopes, and notable stands of trees or other vegetation. Natural features should function as site amenities. Use incentives such as flexible lot size and configuration to encourage preservation and add amenity value. Staff Comment: See Objective CD-A discussion above. Policy CD-7. Interpret development standards to support projects Incorporating site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes that can be retained to enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible. Replanting should occur where trees·are not retained due to safety concerns. Retention of unique site features should be balanced with the objective of Investing In neighborhoods within the overall context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: See Objective CD-A discussion above. Policy CD-16. Project design, Including location of access ahd dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacY and quality of life on existing Improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate Increased' denSity. Policy CD-19. Land should be subdivided Into blocks sized so that walking distances are mtnlmlzed and convenient routes betw,een destination points are available .. dty of Renton Deportment of eo'&'lty & Economic Deile;opment RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU.ARY PLAT p'.OIJl Plot Report & RecommendaUon ,LUAJ3-001572, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 110f34 Compliant If I\Iiltlgatlon Meas,Lires and Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If Mitigation Me'~sures and 'Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If Mitigation Ml!asures and Conditions of Approval are !'.'let Compliant If Mitigation Measures and Conditions of HEX REPORT FINAL Policy CD-22.Durlng land division, all lots should front streets or parks. Discourage single tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Where a single-tier plat Is the only viable alternative due to land configuration, significant environmental, constralnts,or location on a principal arterial, additional design features such as a larger setbacks, additional iandscaplng, or review offenclng,should be required. Policy, m-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 po~ential adverse Impacts. Staff Comment: See Objective CD-A discussion a.bove. 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 high quality development as a primarY goal, rather than to niaximlze density as a first consideration. Staff Comment: See Objective CD,A discussion above. Additionally, the applicant Is proposing total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open space, in addition to critical areas on site, to be set aside for the open space needs of the subdivision which qlso seNes to meet the intent of this policy. Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and Inflll project d~signs~hat address privacy and quality of .life for existing residents. Staff Comment: The site Is entirely surrounded by existing single family residences with an averlJge lot size of approximately 8,600 square feet. The surrounding platting pattern is In- keeping with the development standards of the less intense R-4 zoning classlficatiori (RMC 4- 2-110A). Staff received several comments related to the compatibility of the relative Intensity of the proposed subdivision (Exhibit 10). SEPAril/tiglJt/on measures and conditions of approval are recommended In order to address privacy and quality of life for existing residents as well as addressing conflicts between old and new development patterns(see additional discussions In ERC Staff RepartiExhiblt 21 under Finding 35.4, Critical Areas and Finding 35.5,Communlty Assets). , Policy CD-47 • New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts be,tween old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards Is not required. Staff Comment: See Policy C0-45 discussion above. 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. Staff Comment: See Policy CD'45 ,diSCUSSion above. PoliCY CD-55. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and screening devices such as berms and fencing should be employed to reduce Impacts (e.g. visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent,'less Intensive uses. City of Renton Deportment of co'&'lty & EconomIc Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PRELlmNARY PLAT p.nQlY Plat Report & RecommendatIon , LUAl3-001572, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 1.2,of34 'Approval are StaffCcimment: See PoliCy C0-45 discussion obove. Met 2. COMPUANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING ClASSlRCAnON: The subject site Is classified Residentlal-8 dulac (R-8) and Resldential-4 dulac (R4) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. Therefore R-8 development.standar'ds, pursuant toRMC 4-2-11(iA, have been used to evaluate the proposed project. The proposal is Consistent with the following development standards if all conditions of approvai are complied with: , Density: The allowed density range In the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maxl~um of l!,O dwelling units per acre. Except that the maxknum shall De 6 dwelling units per net acre when alleys are considered practical, as specified In RMC 4-7-150.E.5, and are not part of the street configuration. Staff Comment: The subject site has a gross square footage of 943,331 square feet {21.66 ~ acres}. After subtracting 180,646 square fee.t for proposed right-ahvciY dedications; 7,650 square feet for access eas~ments; and 13,291 square feet for critical areas; the net square footage afthe site would be 741,744 square feet {17.03 net acres}. A 97 lot proposal would arrive at a net density of 5.70 dwelling units per acre {97 lots I 17.03 acres = 5.70 dulac} whli:h' falls within the density range for the R-8 zone without the use of alleys within the street configuration. Lot .Dimenslons: The minimum lot size permitted in the R'8 zone Is 4,500 square feet .In area for parcels being subdivided that are larger than one acre. A minimum lot width of 50 feet is required for Interior lots and 60 feet for comer lots. Lot depth Is required to be a minimum of65 feet. Staff Comment: As c!ernonstrated in the table above {Finding 26}, most lots meet the requirements for minimum lot size, depth, and width as outlined in RMC 4-2-110A. However, ComJlllantlf RMC4-11-120 defines lot width as the average distance between the side Iines,connecting Condition of front and rear lot lines. It is unclear If proposed Lot 19 meets the lot width requiremetit of Approval Is the zane. Therefore stoff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant be required lVI,et to demonstrate compliance with the minImum 50100t lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet at t1!e foremost points (where the side lot lines Intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. See additional comments under Finding 35.6, Residential Lots. Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: front yard Is 15 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for an attached garage; interior side yard Is 5 feet; side yard Compliance along a street is 15 feet.for the primary structureafld 20 feet for an attached garage; and not yet the rear yard is 20 feet. determined Staff Comment: The proposed lots appear to contain .adequate area to provide all the required setback areas, Compliance with building setback requirements would be reviewed at the time of building permit review. Building Standards: Building height Is restricted to 30 feet and, 2-stories. Detached Compliance accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed not vet building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 SF In size In the R-4 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 SF, determined whichever Is greater. The allowed impervious surface coverage Is 55 percent. HEX REPORT FINAL ary of Renton Depaitment of ¢a&;ry & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU%ffNARY PLAT pr.nary piat Report & Recommend"tlon LUAl3-00157Z, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 13 ,?f 34 Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If Conditions of Approval are Met HEX REPORT FINAL Staff Comment: The building standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. landscaping: Ten feet of on-site landscaping Is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Such landscaping shall Include a mixture of trees, shrubs; and groiJndcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development Staff Comment: The applicant has provided a conceptual landscape plan as part of the Preliminary Plat application (Exhibit 18). As proposed the conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the 10100t wide on-site landscape requirement for each Individual lot, Additionally, the ERC issued a SEPA mitigation measure requiring an Increase In the vegetated buffer width to IS-feet surrounding the subject site (Exhibits 22). The ERC also Issued a mitigation measure requiril)g 30% of the trees on site be retained. The applicant submitted a revised tree retention plan (Exhibit 11) depicting the retention of 30% of the trees· on Site. However, It Is unclear how the proposed landscape plan would complement the revised tree retention plan. Finally, the proposal includes several rockeries and retaining (lock and load) walls ranging from 4-21 feet throughout the site. Special consideration for the placement of landscaping should be given to those walls which can be seen by the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82)and abutting proposed active open spaces(proposed Lots 83-90, 93, 94) (see Fences and Hedges discussion below). Compliance with the lS-foot vegetated perimeter would likely satisfy screening of proposed walls that can be viewed by the public on the exterior olthe site. Therefore staff recommends, as a coriditlon of approvdl, the applicant be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting the foliowing: a 10-foot wide on-site laildscape strip for all lots and a IS-foot wide vegetated buffer surrounding the subject site with spacing consideration given to those trees being retained to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall Include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Please note the landscape plan would need to ensure the accommodation of curb cuts and pedestrian connections. Finally, pursuant to RMC 4-6-060 curb bulb-outs are requIred where on-street parking is located. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall.be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plot and laildscaplng plans shall be submitted to and approved by .the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Fences and Hedges: Pursuant to RMC 4-4-040 walls are allowed to be a maximum of 48 inches within the required front yard or Side yard along street for individual lots. Walls not. within required front yards or side yards along a street may be a maximum of 72-lnches in height_ . • Staff Comment: Comments received by parties of interest raised concerns regarding the height of proposed retaining ·walls (ExhibIt 10.7, 10). The applicant Is proposing the use of rockeries and hlock and load u retaining walls throughout the site ranging in height from 4-21 feet of which most walls exceed the height limit noted In RMC 4-4-040. Therefore stiI/f recommends, as a condition of approva~ the applicant be required to limit all retainIng walls. I I .City of Renton Department of conAity & Econ9mlc Development RESERVE AT nFFANY PARK PREU1!ffVARY PlAT pr.C1 l'y Plat Report &. RecommendatIon LUAl3-001Sn, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 14 of 34 Compliant If Condition of Approval Is Met to a height of no more 6 feet unless located within a requIred front yard setback then the wall(s) would be limIted to a height of 4 feet. Wall elevations sholl be required to be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning 'Pfaject Manager and Development Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. Alternatively, stoff would be supportive of the applicant utilizing terracing (the forming of hillside into a number of level flat areas (terraces) between retaining walls) in order to increase the height of a wall system when the maximum height of a single retaining wallis Insufficient. The following standards sholl. apply to terraced.slopes: i. Terrace Wit;lth: No portion of a retaining wall shall be construed to ,contribute to the width of a terrace. The width of any terrace shall be equal to the height of the tallest abutting retaining Wall; however, the minimum terrace width sholl be two feet (2') and the maximum required width shall be five feet (5'). Terrace width shall be measured from the back edge of a lower retaining wall to the foremost edge of the immediately succeeding and higher retaining wall. iI. Terrace LandscCiplng: Terraces created between retaining walis shall be permanently landscaped with a mixture of shrubs and groundcover (trees are optional) in conformance with the standards of RMC 4-4-070.F, Landscaping. Landscaping provided in front of retaining walls and within terraces shall contribUte to any landscaping required by RMC 4-4-070.F. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to aild approved by the Current Planning Project Man(lger prior to construction permit approval. Parking and Loading: Pursuant toRMC 4-4-080 each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed 9 feet and double loaded garage driveways shall ncit exceed 16 feet, Staff Comment: Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Pursuant to RMC 4-4-080.1.7 shared driveways· are encouraged when feasible and appropriate as they reduce the number 'of curb cuts along individual streets and improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional oil-street parking opportunities. There appears to be opportunities to provide shared access to proposed Lots 11, 78, and 81 via abutting, shored,driveway access easements currently proposed. While the staff report Includes recommendations for revisloils to shared access easements and associated lots (see discussion under Finding 35.6, Residential Lots) the reduction of curb cuts along individual streets should be maIntained. Therefore staff recommends the applicant eliminate individual access directly from Internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements. Sold lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060,1 and K. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current PlannIng Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the ·access restrictlon./or such iats Is requIred to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. C.ompliance with individual driveway requirements. would be reviewed at the time of building permit review. 3. DESIGN STANDARDS: RMC 4-2-115 provides residential and open space standards for development within HEX REPORT FINAL City of Renton Department of qonAlty & Econo!7llc Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU;;:m:ARY PLAT pr.alY Plat RejJort& Recommendation LUAl3-001572, PP, EO', CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 ,Page 15 of 34 the R-8 zoning classification, 111e proposal is consis,tent with the following design standards Ifall conditions of approval are complied with: Lot COnfiguration: One of the Following Is required: lot width variation of 10 feet minimum of one per four abutting street fronting lots, or ' Mlnimum·offour lot sizes (minimum of 400 gross square feet size difference), or A'front yard setback'varia,tlon of at least fllie feet minimum for at least every four Not abutting street fronting lots, Compliant Staff Comment: The p;oposal does not Include variation In the lot sizes or width that would meet the first two criteria, The applicant will be required to provide a front yard setback variation of at least five feet for at least every four abutting street fronting lots, Alternatively, the plat could be revised to provide a lot width variation of 10 feet for one per four abutting street fronting lots or minimum offour lot sizes (minimum of 400 gross square feet size difference). 4. CRITICAL AREAS: The proposal Is consistent with critical area regulations'as stated In RMC 4-3-050 If all conditions of approval are met: Compliant If COnditiOnS of Approval are Met' HEX REPORT FINAL Staff Comment: Due to the presence of critical areas the applicant completed a Wetland DeterlJllnqtion, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc., dated October 30, 2013. The applicant submitted a revised Wetland Determination In response to revisions to the plat Including the use of a drainage vaUlt, Instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter, dated February 28, 2014. The revised Wetland Determination replaced the orlglneil wetland determination. Bq,th reports Identified four wetlands on the subject site (Wetlands A-D). Based on public comments received (Exhibit 10.6,10-12,16,17,22,25,32,38,39,40,42,43, 47, 58, 63; 65), staff required an evaluation by an Independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by Otak (Exhibit 14). The memo outlined several requests for information before the secondary review could be completed, including: ref/agging, additional survey information, associated changes to the mitigation plan, and the Inclusion of temporary Impacts. On May 7, 2014 a meeting was held on site, attended by representatives of the City, the project applicant (Henley VSA), the project contact (Barghausen), the applicant's wetland specialists (Gary Schulz and $oundview Consultants), and Otak (the City's wetland consultant), Following the completion of recommendations in theOtak memo (Exhibit 14) and the meeting hlHd on site, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and ResponSe on June 3, 2014 (Exhibit 5), The Revised Wetland Determination identified a 5th wetland (Wetland E) and addressed those concerns raised by Otak in their memo, dated April 3,,2014. On July 9, 2014 a supplemental independent secondary wetland review, of the Revised Wetland Determination, was,pravided to the City by Otak (Exhibit 15). The memo generally outlined concurrence with the June 3, 2014 Revised Wetland Determination. The revised wetland buffer averaging proposal for Wetlanels A, B, C,' and D were generally supported (additional comments below) as was the identification and support of a needed Critical Area Exemption for Wetland E (see additional comments below). Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revised submittal materials, Staff utilized the Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3, 2014) In support of the plat plan dated July 16,2014 to base its arialysis. The critical areas on site have a total dreaof 118,494 square feet {2.72 acresJand would be City of Renton Department of eotAnity & EconomlcDevelopment RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREAARY PLAT pr.nary Plat Report & Recommendation LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 16of34 HEX REPORT FINAL located In (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant Is proposing to increase wetland buffers which would. result.ln a total native open space used to preserve .native Jorest habitat approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 acres). B C D E 505 SF 3 25 5,349 SF 2 50 3,381 SF 2 50 665 SF 3 25 3,740 SF (Averaged wi 35,583 SF of additional buffer) 2,644 SF (Averaged wi 1i,890 SF of additional buffer for the Wetland BIC complex) See wetland B comments above. li203 (Temporary) 1,627 SF (Averaged wi 2,589 SF of additional buffer) 14 SF (Permanent) Wetland A: Wetland A is a 3,326 square foot wetland located on the north side of the subject property. The report sUites the wetland Is palustrine, scrub-shrub, Is seasonally flooded and Is classified as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3'()SO Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. Wetland B: Wetland B is a small 505 square foot wetland located on the south side the subjecJ; property. It Is likely this wetland has groundwater influence and seasonal sUrface water flows from surrounding upland. The report states the wetland is predominately vegetated with shrubs and isclass/fied as a Category 3 wetland. According to RMC 4-3'()SO Category 3 wetlands have a.standard buffer of 25 feet. Wetland C: Wetland C is a 5,349 square foot wetland located just east of Wetland B and Is the largest wetland on site. Wetland C Is forested and has d dense shrub cover. It Is likely this wetland is also supported by groundwater Influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland Is palustrine, scrub-shrub, Is seasonally flooded and is class/fied as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. Wetland D: Wetland D isa small 3,381 square foot wetland located adjacent to th!1 Mercer Island pipeline. Wetland D has a dense shrub cover. It Is likely this wetland Is also supported by groundwater Influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, Is seasonally flooded and is class/fied as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3'()SO Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. Wetland E: Wetland E Is a small 665 square foot wetland loc.ated adjacent to SE la'h st. Wetland E has sparse shrub cover. It Is also likely this wetland Is supported by groundWater Influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland Is palustrine, as a 3 wetland. aty of Renton Deportment of eo&'ty & EconomlcDevelopment RESERVE AT nFFANY PARK PREu"fJl'f'NARY PLAT . pr.nafJ/ Plat Report & 'Recommendatlon LUAl3-D0157Z, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date:.November18,2014 Page.170f34 HEX REPORT FINAL to RMC 4-3-050 Category 3 wetlands have a standard buffer af 25feet. Wetland Buffer Averoging: The applicont hos proposed buffer averaging for Wetlands A, .c, andD. It should be noted Wetland B. Is located within the 50'foot buffer of Wetland C and as a result the praposed buffer averaging Is. combined to compensate for buffer reduction. Overall the applicant Is proposing wetlond buffer reductions In the amount of approximately 8,000 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions In the amount of approximately 48,000 square feet. !'lirsuontto .RMC, buffer width averaging may be allowed by the .reviewing off/clal only where the applicant demonstrates all of the fallowing: I. That the wetland contains variotions In ecological sensitivity or there are existing physlcol Improvements in or riear the wetland and buffer; and II. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; ond 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; a.nd Iv. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than 50% of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet wide. The applicant's Revised Wetland Determination, generally concurred . by the Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review, concluded the wetland buffers proposed for buffer reduction through averaging would have the physical characteristics that can protect water quality and wetland hyd;ologic flinctlons including /lood storage (Exhibits 5 and 15 respectively). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. The factors that can Increase or provide sediment and pollutant removal the report states would remain in the reduced buffer oreas. The subject wetlands would be preserved and have the opportunity to improve water quality and reduce flooding dnd erosion with the additional of buffer area. Additionally, the requested buffer reductions are no greater than 50% of the standard buffer widths, with a majority of the buffer reductions at approximately 36%. Finally, none of the standard 50- foot buffers would be reduced to the minimum buffer setback Of 25 feet. Staff has reviewed the revised wetland buffer averaging proposal for Wetlands A, B, C, and D, and agrees that the proposal meets all requirements In RMC 4-j-M.6.f. However, as indicated in the Supplementdllndependent Secondary Review (Exhibit 15), there does not appear to be buffer adjustments on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C to take Into account the hlock & load walls' proposed. It appears that portions of the walls may fall within the proposed final buffer edges. Therefore, .staff recommends thdt the applicant revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C. The ·applicant shall also Identify If proposed walls are antic/pOred to Impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8-120. iN, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prlotto construction permit approval. If all conditions of Preliminary Plat approval are met the buffer averaging proposal is expected to provide better conditions than what existed prior to construction. Temporary Wetland Buffer Impacts: As a port a/the project's construction temporary wetland Impacts ore anticipated. These City of Renton Deportme~t of co.nlty & Economic Development RESERVE AT,TIFFANY PARK PREUMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: November 18.2014 p,enOI)l Plot Report & Recommendation LUAl3-00157Z, PP,.ECF, CAE Page 18 cif 34 Impacts would result In 3,393 square feetaf impacted area. There are twa .locatlans on the project site where temporary buffer Impacts could occur during lot and roadw.ay canstrjJction "ctlvitles. The larger. area Is along the north boundary of proposed Lots 1 through 6. Due to the topography In this area, excavation is I'ropose~ In order to create building pads for residential lots. The estimated area of buffer disturbance is anticipated to be 2,825squoreleet with portions of the djsturbonce not located within the code required 50-foot buffer but within the proposed additional buffer being pravidec! os part of the buffer averoglngptoposal. . Th.e second location of potentla1.tefT1porqry buffer Impact Is proposed for a retaining wall adjacent to the buffer of Wetland D. The Impact area shown Is about 8 feet wide and 150 feet in length The area for this temparary.lmpact Is 1,203 square feet with approximately ~ of the area nat located within the code required 50-foot buffer and Is located within the proposed enhanced buffer. The applicant Is proposing mitigation for temporary Impacts to buffers with restoration Inciudirig new tree and shrub plantings designed to replace site- specific plant community habitat. Staff has reviewed the proposed temporary wetland buffer impacts, along with the Supplemental Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 15) and has determined that the Revised Wetland Determination report (Exhibit 5) sufficiently discusses and shows temporary Impacts to wetland buffers. Staff Is recommending as a condition of approval, that temporary buffer Impacts consisting of minor Intrusions or disturbance from construction activities be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. If all conditions of Preliminary Plat approval are met the proposol is expected to bring the tempororlly Impocted areos to similor or better conditions than what existed prior to construction. Critical Area Exemption: HEX REPORT FINAL The revised Wetland Determination report (Exhibit 5) discusses a permanent buffer Impact to Wetland E. The proposal would require the extension of SE ls'h st. The City's Complete Street Standards (RMC 4-6-060) would require the extension to be 1.5 feet wider than the existing right-of-way. In order to construct the new portion of Sf 1ff' St to current standards o very minor portion of Wetland E buffer would be Impacted. The Impact totals 14 square feet of new buffer Impact and results in 0 wetland buffer width of less than 25 feet. Wetland E's standard 25-foot buffer has been Impacted (cleared, graded, and paved) from the past construction of SE lff' St and the adjacent sidewalk. Existing buffer Impact is estimated to be approximately 219 square feet. The Renton MuniCipal Code has on exemption allowance for extensions of a public street to Impact wetlane! bUffers. The project would fall underthii'Specif/c Exemptions-Critical Areas and Buffers, which states Nthe const,uct/qn of new trails, streets, roads, rights-of-way and associated oppurtenances, facilities and utilities where no 'alteration or additional fili' materials will be. placed ather than the minillium alteration and/or fill needed ... N (RMC 4-3- 05OC.5.e.Ii). Whiles staff received several comments requesting the denial of the requested exemption (Exhibit 10.25, 2 7, 32, 34-37, 43, 65, 66) the proposed area of new Impact to the Wetland E buffer Is l!il!l!. small, ·and Is necessary.[or construction of the SE lff' St extension. Full street Improvements, along SE 1s'~ ~t would assist In providing much needed pedestrian connectivity: The provided Wetland Determination does not outlhie specif/clliitigatlon to compensate. for permanent impacts to the Wetland E. Therefore, staff Is recommending City of Renton Department of Co4ity/ii E~onomlc Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUMlNARYPLAT pre.a:ry Plat I/ep0rt & RecOmf!lendatlon LUA13-OO1S7Z, PI', ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page190f34 approval o/the requested Critlcol Area Exemptiori If the following canditlon of appro valis met pursuant to RMe 4-~-o50,M.9: The applicant shall provicJe creation of additional wetland bUffer, associated with Wetland'E',!,; order to offsetthe Impacts resulting from the requested exemption. Enhancement In conjunction with creation may,beallowed In ordei"to offset the 'impacts. Specifically, the, applicont is enco(Jraged to provide enhancement to the Wetland 'j;, buffer immediately abutting SE ufh St. A revised mitigation plan shrill be submitted to,and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager jJrIorto 'construction permit approval, ,,' , Finally, staff recommends the applicant also be required to establish C1 Native Growrh Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers andplace/imclng and slgnage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. Aquifer pfotection Area: The subject site Is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. The purposeo! the Aq(Jifer Protection regulations (RMC4-3-oS0) is taproted: aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination by hazardous materials. RMC 4-3-050 outlines prohibited activities with the Zone 2 ofthe Aquifer ProteCtion Area. The proposed single family residential use is not prohibited (md Is therefore not anticipated to degrode the groundwater quality, if the propasol complies with all water quolity requirenieiits listed In the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Additionally, soNs are not antiCipated to be brougflt Into the site and the project proposes to provide a , closed detention facility (underground vault and closed conveyance system) therefore liners to open water drainage facilities would not be required. If soils are proposed to be Imparted to the site staffrecornmends, as a condition of approval, -the applicant shall be required to submit a fill 'source statement to the City to ensure only clean fill is importecJ prior to construction. HEX REPORTFINAL Critical Habitat: As a result of comments received by t,he public, the City asked the,applicant to Investigate the presence of regulated fish and Wildlife habitat on the subject site (Exhibit 10.1, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 35, 37, 40, 49, 50, 58, 64). The applicant submitted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment; prepared by,Soundview Consultants, dated January 16, 2D14 , (Exhibit 6). The assessment was later supplemented by two Technical Mem'orandums, also prepared by Soundvlew Consultants, dated February 11, 2D14 (Exhibit 16) and June 12, 2014 (Exhibit 17) respectiv.ely. The supplements were provided In order to take into consideration revisions made to the proposal and the identification of Wetland E. Several potentially regulated fish and Wildlife habitats and priority species are identified In the vicinity of the project according the list generated by theVl(ashlngton Department of fish and Wildlife~ (Priority Habitats and Species list). This study identified that no state or federally IistecJ species were identified or knaWn to use the site and/or are}ocated oil or near the site, PUrs(Jant to the provided,repo[tthere Is no "critical habitat» as definecJ by Renton Municipal Code located on or near the subject site. Priority species potentially -Impacted by orislte project actioriS Iilclude the plleated woodpecker onr;l Townsend bats. Evidence of woodpecker presence was observed in standing snags in and around onslte wetlands; however, no pileated woodpeckers were observed by SoundVlew Consultants. The report states the forage signs were Inconclusive jar Pileated woodpecker presence. However, pictures were provided IJY a party of interest of a pileated woodpecker,on site (Exhibit 10.64). The provided repoftnotes that preservation of wetlands will provide protection of these hcibltat features (pi/eated woOdpecker and Towl1send bats) should they actually be present on 'site. Additionally, the proposed tree preservation plan and compliance with theSEPA mitigation measure for a minimum 15{oot ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Renton Deportment of ColAmlty & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREJfII/fNARY PLAT . p.lnary Plat I/eport & Recommendation LUAJ3-00lS1Z, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November,lS, 2014 Page200f34 buffer along the perimeter of the site (Exhibit 22) Is expected to provide additional habitat qvailablliiyfqr these species, Offslte priority aquatic species associated with the Cedar River In water habitat are not anticipated to be Impacted If the proposal camplles with stormwater requirements as listed above. While the above conclusions may be true,the site stili Provides habitat for many non-state or federally listed species, Noted In the projects SEPA check list, and comments from parties of interest, severa; birds and mammalstJtillze the site (songbirds, hawks, small rodents, raccoons, deer, crows, and other woodpeckers), The removal otalarge portion of the trees would Impact existing habitat for cammon local Wildlife. However, 5.28 acres (approxlmately24.4% of the site) would reinaln Ina vegetative state providing a sanctuary for the animals that reside in the area. Additionally, this area would Increase with the compliance otissued SEPA mitigatian measures (Exhibit 22). The ERC determined that the subject development would result In probable significant adverse impact to Wildlife (Exhibit 21). In order to preserve' and protect the wetland and associated buffers the applicant would be required, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over the portions of the site encompaSSing wetlands and buffer area (see Wetland discussion above). Additionally, requirements have been recommended for permanent fencing of the native growth protection areas which would eliminate human or domesticated animal Intrusion. Public comments received also focused on vermin -mice, rats, ground squirrels, etc. - proliferation when grading begins. A SEPA mitigation measure was Issued requiring a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, which will address vermin abatement during project grading and site improvements (Exhibit 22). 5. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Including analysis pursuant, but not limited, to RMC 4-7-190. The proposal Is conslstentwith the following community asset requirements If all condition of approval are complied with: Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met HEX REPORT FINAL Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130 states thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. Staff Comment: The site Is currently forested with mixed canopy dominated by Douglas /ir, western hemlock, red cedar, big Jeaf maple, red alder, and black cottonwood. The site's understory is dominated by salmonberry, vine maple, western hazelnut, snowberry, red elderberry, red huckleberry, and Indian plum. The existing groundcover includes sword fern, bracken fern, trailing blackberry, salol, Oregon grape, and bleeding .heart. The applicant provided iJ Tree Protection Plan/Arbarist Report, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated November 13, 2013. The plan/report was. later supplemented by a revised Tree Protection Plan/Arborist ,Report, also prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated June 6, 2014 (Exhibit 4). The revised report was completed in order to take into consideration revisions made to the plat layout, change to a detention vault, and Identification of an additianal wetland, Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revised submittal materials, Staff utilized the Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Repart (dated June 3, 2014) In. support of the plat plan dated July 16,2014 to base Its analysis. Based on the provided tree Inventory, 1,305 trees are located on the subject site. There are 72 trees located In critical areas and associated buffers; 354 trees were Identified as dead, diseased, or dangerous; and 253 trees would be located within proposed rights-of-way and access easements. This res~/ts in the exclusion of 679 trees from retention calculations. As such, 626 trees were utilized to calculate retention requirements of 30% of the significant City of Renton Department of Come/ty & Economic Deyelopment RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUMINARY PLAT pre.OIY Plat Report & Reco;"mendation LUA13-001572, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 21 cif 34 trees located on the site. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 188 trees on site. The provided Tree Retention Plan depicts the retention of 147 trees outside of the critical areas and their associated buffers and a landscape plan depicting 246 replacement trees in order to meet treefetention requirements (Exhibit 3). . Pursuant to RMC 4-4-130 trees are required to be .molntolned to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. Modification of the tree retention and land clearing plan, ar the assocla.ted land development .permlts, may be required to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees. The existing tree canopy contributes to the City's physical and aesthetic character, environment, open space, and Wildlife habitat. Therefore the proposed development 'should result In minimal adverse disturbpnce to existing vegetation While at the some time recognizing the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of the property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover .. The ERC issued a SEPA mitigation measure (Exhibit 22) requiring the applicant to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers which are required to be maintained. On August 20, 2014 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a revised Arborist Report and Tree Retention Plan which Included the .retention of at least 30% of significant trees an site. This' an-hold was done In order to ensure that a revised tree retention plan would not significantly alter the plat proposal. The applicant submitted an Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultonts,lnc., doted August 27, 2014 demonstrating compliance with the 30% tree retention requirement with the ./oss of one lot (Exhibit 11). The applicant's alternate tree retention plan depicts the retention of 181 trees outside of the cfitlcal areas and their associated buffers. In lieu of replacement trees, 7 trees that are at least 6 Inches DBH are proposed to be transplanted from the buildable area Into a tree tract which could satisfy the 30% tree retention requirement if no changes are required to be made as part of the final construction permit approval. Staff Is supportive of the method used for inventory and generally agrees with the assumptions made In the arborist report. However, it does not appear the tree retention plan takes iilto consideration grading needed to support proposed retaining walls along Lots 1-6, 14-22, 30-34. Therefore, staff Is recommending the applicant provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not Impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Finally, both the Tree, protection Report and the Alternative Tree Protection Report (Exhibits 4 and 12 respectively) include speclficiecommendatlons for Inspection of retained trees after Initial clearing, final grading; and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester to Identify those retained trees that develop problems dues to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. A SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant to provide, to the Current Planning Project Attcmager, tree retention Inspection/monitoring reports after Initial clearing, final grading, and annually thereafter for two years by a qualified professional fOiester (Exhibit 22). 6. COMPUANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal Is consistent with the fo"owlng subdivision regulations If a" conditions of approval are complied with: HEX REPORT FINAL City of Renton Deportment of coanity'&ECOnOmlcpevelopm~nt RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU1lrNARY PLAT p.nary Plot Report & Recommendation LUA13-00157Z, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 22 of 34 Compliant If Conditions of Approval are Met Compliant If Conditions of Approval are Met HEX REPORT FINAL COmpatibility With Existing Land Use and Plan: No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the proposal meets those requirements listed In RMC 4-7-120, Stoff Comiillint:The proposal compl/es with the general reqtiirementBet lorth In RMC 4-7- 120 01 all conditions 01 approval are met. if a subdivision Is located In the area of an officially deSignated troll, provisions and required to be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City lor troll purposes. According to the Rentan Trolls and Bikeways lyIap (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail Is deSignated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. 'The applicant would be required to obt(1in right-of-way or an access eosement across the pipeline lor secaiJdary access via 124th Place SE (see Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the appllcallt "",auld, be required to pravide a sale crossing for the deSignated tioil across the extension of 124'" Place SE. Therefore, stoff recommends the applicant submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, far the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Maflager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the'Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Staff Comment: Staff 'received comments from interested parties with respect ,to Traffic specifically related to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE!SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic Impact fees (Exhibit 10.1,2, 4-8, 10, 11, IS, 18,21, 22, 25-30, 34-37, 39, .42, 44, 47-79, 51, 52, 54-57, 62, 63(66). The primary neighborhood streets which would serve project traffic Include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE- Benson Road S. The project site is currently 'served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 Is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 12~ Ave SE. The applicant submitted a Troffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspaGroup, dated November, 2013 as part 01 the original submittal. Based on public comments received, stoff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. Before the independent review could be completed the City received a public camment petition Identifying a key Intersection not Included In the or/ginal analysis (Exhibit 10.4). As a result of this comment, the applicant revised the Transportation Report to Include analysis of the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE Intersection dated April 23, 2014 In addition to a vehicle speed report and traffic volume counts. The applicant submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (/'IA) prepared by TranspoGroup, dated Apr1l23,2014 (Exhibit 9). Due to the several revisions made to the,plat, and revised submittal materials, Staff utilized the Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014) in support of the plat plan dated July 16, 2IJ14 to base Its analYSis. On May 16, 2014 the Independent secondary transportation review was provided to the City by Perteet (Exhibit 13). Applicable comments from the Independent reviewer are provided below for each Transportation subject. Level of SerVice: The opDllcable Traffic report states thai: the proposed development would City of Renton Department ofCorrAlty & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PRfUNlfJARY PLAT pre.a/}' Plat Report & RecommeMatlon LUAl3-00157Z, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page230f34 HfX REPORT FINAL generatel!030 trips average'weekday vehicle trlpslnciluding 7Bweekday peak haur AM trips a[ld 103 weekday peak hour PM trips (Exhibit 9). The report also .analyiec! the level .of service at the fallawing Intersectians: 1. Bensan Drive SIS Puget Drive 2. Bensan Raad SIS Puget Drive '3. Rayal Hills Drive SE/S Puget Drive 4. 116th Avenue SE/SE 160th Street S. 116th Avenue SE/SE 16Bth Street 6. 116th Avenue SE/SE Petravitsky Raad 7. Lake Yaungs Way SE/SE 18th Street B. KirklandAvenueSE/Lake Yaungs Way SE 9. Kirkland Avenue SE/SE 15Sth Street 10. 126th Avenue SE/SE 160th Street 11. 126th Avenue SE/SE 168th Street ' 12. 124th Place S,E/SE 15Bth Street 13. Edmands Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmands Way SE Analysis .of future canditians ciddresses cumulative Impacts .of the prapased praject and traffic grawth in the study area. All but twa study Intersectians were conducted in late June 2013. While the traffic study was campleted during schaal break, schaal traffic generated by Tiffany Park Elementary Schaal was added ta caunt valumes based an the current student enrallment of the schaal and average trip rates. Traffic valumes at the Rayal Hills Drive SE/S Puget Drive and Edmands Avenue SE/SE16th Street-Edmands Way SElntersectlans were callected in April 2014 When public schaals Were In sesslan. ' Existing and future withaut-praject LOS and delays were calculated at study intersectians. The traffic study states that these Intersectians will cantinue ta .operate at an acceptable level .of serVice. All study Intersectlans operate at LOS D or better during bath the AM and PM peak hours far existing canditlans. With growth In traffic valumes by 2018, all study InterseCtians would cantinueto .operate at LOS D .or better!arboth AM and PM peak haurs, The .one exception being 8enson Drive SIS Puget Drive intersectian which changes from LOS D under existing conditians to LOS E under 2018 traffic valumes far the AM peak hour. Iii 2018, the Intersectian of Bensan Drive SIS Puget Drive is e~timated to .operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour with-or without-praject conditions. The additian of AM peak haur project ttaffic would add appraximately five secands of average delay to this intersectlan. The remaining study Intersectians wauldaperote at LOS D or better with or without project traffiC during bath weekday peak haurs. Given LOS D would be maintained with or without the project additional mitigation Is unnecessary far level of serVice delays. Increased traffic created by the develapment would be mitigated by payment of transportatian impact fees. Currently this fee is assessed at $1,430.72 per new single-family hame and will increase January 1, 2015 ta $2,143.70. Currently the fee is estimated at approximately $139,000 and would Inc~ease to $20B,000 on January 1, 2015. The fee, ,as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit Issuance sholl be payable to the City. Sight Distance: Sight distance triangles were evaluated at three Intersection locations associated with the project site accesses, Major and minor streets are shown for each location. Further discussion of sight-distance at the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street- Eilmonc!s Way Sf was also analyzer!. City 01 Renton Department 01 CoAnity & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU~ARY PlAT pr.nary Plat Report & Recommendation LUAl3-001Sn, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page'24 of 34 HEX REPORT FINAL 1.' LakeYoungs WaySE/SE 1s'" St 2. Monr~ Ave SE /SE ufhst '3. 124'h PlaceSE/SE 15s'h St The provided Transportation Study 'notes field measurements at each of the three loCations ab.ove show sight distarices In excess of 200 feet with the exception of SE 18'" St east 0/ Monr~ Ave SE. Currently, Monr~Ave Sf/Sf ls'h Street isuricoiltrolled cind does not have any marked channelization. Limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Ave, 'SE approaching SE ls'h St due to the roadway geometries and existing 'obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). This limitation could create a potential traffic safery impact with increases In traffic on SE 18'" St attributable to the proposed project. Sight distance to the east of Monr~ Ave SE Is limited by an existing fence along the narthside of SE 1,s'h Stas well as legal an-street parking an the north side of SE 18'h St east of Monroe Ave SE. The report notes traffic safery impacts for southbound motorists on Monr~ Ave SE approaching SE 1s'h St could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Manroe Avenue SE at the Intersection and/or restricting on-street parking along the north side of SE ls'h St east of Monr~ AveSE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. Staff received several concerns regarding the potentiai elimination of parking along Sf 18'h St i:Ind requested the City not require the elimination of the parking stalls (Exhibit 10.1, 6, 7, 26, 28, 35, 37, 44). After review, Including the Independent secondary traffic review completed by Perteet (Exhibit 13,) the ERC determined that a STOP sign with a stopline in thermoplastic placed on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave NE would address the sight distance concerns at this Intersectioil, subject to final construction permit review. The elimination a/parking along $E 18'" Stcould also reduce the likelihood of colllsioil but would not be necessciry. A SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant 'install a STOP sign with a stopline in thermaplastic placed on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave SE to address the sight distance concerns at this Intersection (Exhibit 22). Also Included In the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for sight distance onalysls at the 124" Place SE and SE 15s'h St intersection. The report Identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the pravided TlA ,does nat Include an analysis af the sight distance at this intersection a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis af the 124" Place'SE and Sf 158'" St Intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation it needed (Exhibit 22). Finally, the provided TlA Included a review of potential safery-related Impacts was conducted at the Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th St-Edmonds Way SE Intersection. In addition to the collision history'at this Intersection, this included a review of sight distance for motorists on the minor streets approaching Edmonds' Ave SE, existing vehicle speeds,and consideration for a pedestrian crosswalk (see Pedestrian Improvements discussion !lelow) at the intersection given Increases In traffic attributable to the proposed project. Available sight distance was measured on both ,the southwestbciund SE 16'" St approach and northwestbound Edmonds Way SE approach to Edmonds Ave SE. Sight distance .was measured to determine II adequate sight distance exists enabling motorists tq safely see (and yield to) pedestrians crossing at the intersection. AASHTO recommends at/east 200 feet of stopping sight distance along roadways with a design speed of 30 mph. This Is an appropriate distance for both SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE as both rocidWays have a posted speed limit of 25 mph. As noted In the provided Traf!iclmpact AnalysiS, 8,300feet of sight distance exists for motorists approaching Edmonds Ave SE fram the ilortheast and Ptyof Renton Departinent of eo&lty & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PRELI~NARY PLAT pr.ary Plat Report &.Recommendatlon, LUA13-001512, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18,2~14 Page 25 of 34 HEX REPORT FINAL more than 300 feet isovailablefor motorists approaching SE16th St from the southeast and therefore,existing sight distances exceed the minimum standard (Exhibit 9). City stafrhas reviewed the vertical sight distance atthe intersection of Beacon Woy SE and SE 1ff" St and concluded dUi! to thi? vi!rtlcal curve In thi! street there Is a visibility concern. A crest ver'tlcal curve obstructs sight distance where SE 1ff" Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially/fcar speeiJs exceed posted speed limit. slgnage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery When Wet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) atS.E16th St northeast a/Beacon Way SE which help to calm existing traffii: at this.intersection, .Glven(jO% of the praject's trIp are anticipated to utilize the intersection a SEPA mitigation measure was Issued requiring an additional warning sign for C1 CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) tNitha 15MPH advisory speed be installed by the applicant an the southwest directional approach to Beacon WaJl SE,along tile north side of SE 1ff" St (east of Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22); The proposal's increase In the number of vehicle trips is also anticipated to exacerbate existing sight distance and cut thru traffic Issues at the, identified Intersection given 60% of the projects proposed trips are anticipated to use this intersection. In arder to reduce cut- thru traffic a SEPA mitigation measure was Issued requiring the applicant ta Install direCtlona/lnfCJrma~ion signage (white letters on green background) Puget and. 116th Ave SE foclng west (Exhibit 22). The signs are req/Jired to read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and NCASCADE" with a right arrow. ' Many of the provided public comments request the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure along SE 1ff" St to address sight dista(lce (Including vertical), cut through traffic, and spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. While speeds bumps would assist in traffic calming and incentlvlze the use of Royal HiJ/s Drive as access into the area the City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installatians(so drivers can make up time), aniJ result In a reduction In response time of public safety vehicles such as fire engines and aid cars. Eventually the use of speed ,bumps Is something the City may aI/ow, but 'not at .this time. The SEPA mitigation measures mentioned above are expected tCJ mitigate traffic impacts cllused by the development. Access: Pursuant to the Renton Munlc/palCode the applicant is required to provide secondary access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety. The applicant Is proposing two points of Ingress and egress .Into the plat; SE 1Ff1' St and 124th Place SE. The report states 60% of weekday site traffic Isanticipateci. to travel to/from 1-405 or dawntown Renton via Talbot Road S.1ntothesite via SE 1s'h St ond the remaining 40% would access the s.lte via 124th Place,Sf to/fromSR-167 via SE Carr Road-SE 176th Street, south and east af the site. Public comments received contained concerns regarding adequate access Intathe plat and the need for additional access points or the use of 124th Place SE as the primary access Into the site (Exhibit 10.5,6,9,12,14,30, 3i, 37, 43, 45, 51, 65). Access to the site from 124'" Place SE would require the applicant to obtain right of way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline. In order to ensure adequate se~ondary C/ccess Is provided before plat construction staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant be required to obtain rigtit-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124" Place 5E, to the satisfa.ctlon of t~e Non Reviewer prior to construction pefmitapproval. Frontage.lmpravements: AI/Internal and frontage roods are required to. meefstreefstandards pursuant to RMC4-6- 060. The internal public streets. have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet City of Renton Department of Co,a,lty & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUJ!6JARY PLAT p+ary Plat Report & Recommendation LUAl3-00157Z, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 26 of 34 HEX REPORT FINAL which meets .the City's complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are required. The applicant Is nat proposing any modifications for the Internalfoad network. . While there are existing streets (SE 11th St and124'h Place SE) terminating at the subject site there Is no adjacent 'street frontage necessitating frontage improvements on the perimeter of the site. Pedestrian Improvements/Linkages: Staff received comments from parties of interest with respect to pedestrian connectivity for the plat (Exhibit 10.22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, 42, 42, 51, 57, 66). Specifically concerns regarding Internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, and the crossing at SE 16'h St and Edmonds Way SE intersection. Linkages, Including .sidewalks and pedestrian paths are required to be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create.a continuous and Interconnected network. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways which would connect to the existing sidewalk system. Additionally, the applicant Is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C andE. City staff evaluated the Intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE!SE 16th Street-Edmands Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements In 1996, 2005 and again In 2007 and determined that crosswalks were nat warranted at this location. With the possible exception of gaps In vehicular traffic, the proposed project would not directly affect any of the other criteria used by the City to assess crosswalk installation. Even if this particular criterion was fully met, the combination of the other criteria would not be enough to meet the City's warrant for Installation. See additional discussion under Finding 35. 7, Schools,for safe walking routes to school. Lighting: Street lighting is required per RMC 4-6-0601. Specifically pedestrian lighting for sidewalks and pathwiJys shall be Installed b~tween intersections along streets and at intersection corners for residentia/streets. A lighting plan will be required to be submitted and approved prior to construction permit approval. However, to ensure adequate lighting Is provided for Pedestrian Tracts C aild E staff recommends a condition of approviJl requiring pedestrian lighting be depicted on the lighting pian at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. Alleys: Alley access is the preferred street pattern for all new resld/?ntlal deyelopment except in the Residential Low Density land use designation (RC, R-l, and R-4 zones). However, the applicant has not included alley's as part of the street configuration and is therefore limited the density to less than 6 dwelling units per net acre (see Finding 35.2, Density). Concurrency: Staff recommends a transportation concurrency approval based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels Included In the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Tronsportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation (Exhibit 19). Construction Traffic: Staff received comments from parties of Interest with respect to traffic during construction as well as noise Impacts (Exhibit 10.30,35,39,41,45,47,51,52,54,56, 58, 61): The developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul ---------- City of /Jenton Depo'1ment of Comety & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT pre.iy Plot Report & RecommeiJdotlon LUAl3-001512, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 27 ilf34 'hours, construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior ta construction . .,. Blocks: Pursuant to RMC 4-7-160 Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Compliant If Conditions of Approval are Met HEX REPORT FINAL Residential Lots: Pursuant to RMC 4-7-170 general requirements and minimum standards are provided for residential lots. Arrangement: Insafar as practicai, side lat lines are at rightangles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Access: Twa access points are propased to be used to proliide access to the subdivision; extensians of Sf 1B"'.st and 124th Place Sf. Internal circulatian includes a roadway network in a grid design like pattern with two cul-de-sacs and four shored private access easements that serve up to three lots each. Pursuant to RMC 4-G-060 shared private driveways may be permitted for access up to a maximum of 4 lots. Up to 3 of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. Proposed Lots 15 and 16 are proposed to utilize a shared driveway/access easement across proposed Lot 15 however neither of the lots have code required physical frontage along a street and proposed Lot 15 is considered a pipestem lot (see Pipestem discussion below). Proposed pipestem Lot 17 cauld potentially serve as the required lot with physical frontage along a street if compliant with the minimum lat width on a street curve of 35 feet pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of appraval the Preliminary Plat plan be revIsed so that no more than 4 lots gaIning access via a shared driveway have at least one lot meeting minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (a minimum oj 8096 of the required lot width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s} which pravides physical frontage along the street shall oiJIy be' allawed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. Specifically but not limited to, proposed Lot 17 would be requited to be widened from 32 to 35 feet along the cul-de-sac and take primary access from the shared driveway In order to comply with the recommended candition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permIt approval. Proposed Lots 12 and 13 afe proposed to utilize a shared driveway/access easement across proposed Lot 12 however neither of the lots have code required physIcal frontage along a street and proposed Lot 12 is considered a pipestemlcit (see Pipestem discussion below). Proposed pipestem Lot 14 could potentiaily serve as the required lot with physIcal frontage along a street if compliant with the minimum lot width on a street curve of 35 feet pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D. Staff has recommended the Preliminary Plat, plan be revised so that no more than 4 lots gaining access via a shared driveway have at least one lot meeting minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (see condition above). Specifically, proposed Lot 14 would be required to be widened from 30 to 35./eet along the cul-de-sac afld take primary access from the shared driveway In order to comply with the recommended condition. Alternatively, proposed Lot 11 could seNe as the required lot meeting street frontage If access for Lot 11 were restricted to the shored' driveway. Please note Lot 14 will stili be required to meet mInimum lot width requirements along a street curve (see Minimum Width discussion below). Proposed Lots 39 and 40 are proposed to utilize a shared driveway/access easement across aiy of Renton Department of to./ty & Economic Development RESERVE AT nFFANY PARK PRELlMINARYPLAT p"aiy piat Report & Recommendation LUA13'()01572, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 280f34 HEX REPORT FINAL proposed Lot'40 however neither of the lots have coiJe requireiJ physiCal frontage along a street -aniJ proposed Lot 40./s considetedoplpestem lot (see Pipestem discussion below). ProposeiJ pipestem Lot 38 could potentially serve as the required lot with physical frontage along a street if compliant with the minimum lot width on a street curve Of 35 feet pursuant to RM{ 4-7,170.0. Staff has recommended the PreliminarY piat plan 'be revised so that no more than 4 lots gaining access via a shared driveway have at least ane lot ,meeting minimum lot width requirements alang a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.0 (see condition above). Specifically, proposed Lot 38 would be required to be widened from 20 to 35 feet along the cul-de-sac and toke primary access from the ~hored driveway in order to comply with the recommended condition. ProposeiJ Lots 79 'and 80 are proposed to utilize a shored iJrivewoy/occess easement across proposed Lot 79 however neither of the lots have code required physical frontage along a street and proposed Lot 79 is considered a ,pipestem lot (see Pipestem discussion below). Proposed Lots 78 and 81 could potentililly serve lis ,the required lot with physical fronfoge along a street if vehicular access is only provided ta/rontage lots via the 'shared private driveway. Stoff has recommended the Preliminary Plat plan be revised. so that no more than 4 lots gaining access vIa a shWed driveway have at/east one lot meeting minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMe: 4,7-170.0 (see condition above). Specifically, proposed Lots 78 and 81 would be required to take primary access from the shared driveway In order to comply with the recommendeiJ condition. . Minimum Size: The size, width, and shape of proposed lots meet the minimum area and width requirements of the R-8 ioneif all conditions a/approval are met (see Minimum Width and Pipestem discussion below and FiniJing 35.6, Residential Lots). Minimum (Frontage! Width: Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (where the side lot lines Intersect with the street right-of-way line) sholl not be less than 80% of the required lot wIdth except in ihe cases of radial lots which sholl be a minimum of 35 feet or shall be pipestem lots. However, given the proposal exceeds the minimum denSity, pipestem lots would not be permitted for the proposed plat (see Pipestem discussion below). Therefore, lots are required to be no less than 40 feet In width where the side lot lines intersect with the streetrlght-of-woy or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet. Proposed Lots 14, 15, and 38 do not currently meet minimum lot width requirements pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.0. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the plot plan be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where siiJe lot lineS intersect with the street right of way or for raiJiallots be a minimum of 35 feet In WIdth. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 15, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet in order to comply with the conditIon. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by ,the' Current Planning Project Manager p;/or to construction permit approval. Prooertv Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights- of-way appear to contain a radius of 15 feet. Pipestem Lots: Pursuant to RMC 4-11-120 pIpestem lots are ,def/neiJ as a lot not meeting minImum frontage requirements Pipestem iots may be permitted for new plots to achieve the minimum density within In the R~8 zone when 'there is no other feasibie, alternative to achieving the mInimum density. The applicant 'is currently exceeding minimum density requirements by approximately '1.,7 du/ac;therefore pipestem lots are not permitted within the proposed subdllilslon. Staff recommends, osa condition of approval, the applicant submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination a/all pipestem ./ots (lots which are less than 40 feet In !iVldth where 'the side lot lines Intersect with the.street right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision Specifically, proposed'Lots 12; 14, 15, City of Renton Department of Co.nity & Economic .Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUMlNARY PLAT , p.nary Plat Report & Recommendation LUA13-00157Z; PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: Novemiler 18, 2014 Page 29 of 34 17, 38,,40, and 79 would be required to.be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant mciy also submit an alterncitlve pl(1t plan which Inc1ude~ a combination of a/( lots fronfing onto' a Pllblic street meetIng minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed/or shared driveway/access easements could be placed In. Shared Drlvewciy Tracts With easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4.-6-060, Street Standards (see Access discussion above). The revised plat plop shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 7. AVAIlABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: 1!1c1uding analysis pursuant, but not limited, to RMC 4-7-200. Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff Indicate thotsufflc1ent resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision of Coderec:jUlred improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family lots; will be required In order to mitigate the propo$al's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee Is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee Is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. Parks: Staff received comments with respect to concerns for access to Parks and open space (Exhibit 10.25, 30, 66). City codes currently do not require open space to, be set aside In subdivisions of the R.JJ zone. However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open space, in addition to critical areas on site, to be set aside for the ,?pen space needs of the subdivision. The proposed stormwater detention system 'within Tract A Is a wetvault. Landscaping is proposed over the top of the vault which would provide an amenity to the neighborhood as well as providing an attractive buffer the development and existing development to the west. A Stormwater detention pond within Tract A would not provide the same level of aesthetic benefits as the proposed vault does, which Is Integral to the approval ofthe' ./' requested smali lot clustering. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that any proposal to convert the Storm water vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 080M.2. Compliant If SEPA Mitigation Measure Is Met HEX REPORT FINAL However, it Is still anticipated that the proposed development would generate future demand on existing City parks and recreational facilities and programs. A Parks Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, wlll be required In order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City parks and recreational facilities and programs thereby complying with RMC 4-7-140 Parks and Open Space. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee Is assessed at $963.01 per single family residence and will increase to $1,395.25 January 1, 2015. Schools: It is 'anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at thejollowing schools: Tiffany Park Elementary (0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2} provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who Walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the subject site while Nelson Middle School Would require future students to be transported to school via bus. AS part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing. adequate provisions for sak City Of Renton Department 01 ca.11y & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUMINARY PLAT pr.naty Plat Report & Recommendation LUAJ3-001572, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 30 of 34 Compliant If Condition of Approval I. Met HEX REPORT FINAL walklngcailditions for students who wa/Hoand froni:school aild/or bus stops. Sidewalks would provide a route betWeetithe project site and. nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, Including availab!e marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue Sf/Lake Youngs Way Intersection. The Kirkland Avenue Sf/Lake Youngs. Way intersection Is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE Iff" St intersects Lake Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed it is very likely that a large inflUX of students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 1s'" St intersection, which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a mare practical safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site a SEPA mitigation measure was Issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 11ih St and Lake Youngs Way. No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. .The Renton School District will be making provisions for the loca~ion of bus stops for those students who will be attending Nelson Middle School. A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will also 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 at the time of building permit application. Currently the fee Is assessed at $S,4S5.00 per single family residence and would increase to $5,541.00 oti January 1, 2015. StormWater: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. The site Is located within the molnstem subarea ·of the Cedar River 8asln. The site receives drainage from properties to the north. In the pre-developed condition all downstream drainage currently flows off site onto the properties immediately adjacent to the west or onto SE 1s'" St where It Is collected by the existingstormwater conveyance system. Following the existing closed conveyance system ta tiffany Park Elementary School the runoff Is collected by a 60-lnch trunk line and.ultlmately conveyed northwest to Ginger Creek. Staff received comments from surrounding property owners and the Tribes, with respect to. drainage concerns for the proposal Including: water quality, request to use a pond for detention, request to use a vault for detention, drainage Impacts on specific neighboring lots, and detention vault sizing (Exhibit 10.2, 3, 11, IB, 24, 25, 27, 2B, 30, 33; 34, 35, 37, 40, 45,53, 61, 65). The following analysis addresses those concerns raised by parties of Interest. The applicarit submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by 8arghorusen, dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit B). The proposed subdivision Is subject to full drainage rev lew in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton "Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. 8ased on the City's flow contral map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. This project would not discharge to any critical areas or onto adjacent properties as It would to tie Into an existing storm drain conveyance . system downstream of the detention and water quality system with the exception of a cOtJple of roo/drains. A portion of the lots along the existing wetlands (Wetland A, Wetland 8 and Wetlan.d C) will discharge their roof drains Into the wetland areas to maintain wetland hydrology. Runoff from these wetlands will be collected and routed to the on~/te drainage fadlity. Individual lots would be required to comply with IndivlduaI8MP's. A conveyance system consisting oj catch basins and storm pipe would be constructed in the 'roadways to collect drainage from all Impervious suijaces and lots· on site and convey to the City of Renton Department ofCom.ty & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUMINARY PLAT pre.OIY Plat Report & Recommendation LUAJ3-001S7Z, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 31 of 34 new drainage facility. The drainage facility located In Tract A Is a detention vault sized far Level 2 Flow Control. 8ased on Level 2 detention vault sizing calculations, the vault volume required is 245,850 cubic feet. Water quality would be met with the use of a Storm Filter for this project. In order to provide the necessary depth within the detention facility a new conveyance system will be constructed within SE Iff" St and corinect to the existing storm line at the in'tersection of SE Lake Youngs Way. Stormwater would be discharged Into anew lB'inch storm pipe to be constructed In SE lB'h St approximately 600 feet west of the property boundary where It wiil connect to an existing storm line In Lake Youngs Way Sf. Upon discharging to the existing storm system at Lake Youngs Way SE the existing iB-lnch concrete pipe turns south and conveys stormwatei to the entrance of Tiffany Park. Upstream of the site to the northeast Is the existing Mercer Island Pipeline. This pipeline is approximately 60 feet wide. The pipeline is fully cleared with grass overgrowth and is slightly crowned along the center of the right-of-way for Its full length adjacent to the project site. Due to the inability to efficiently bypass the 3D-foot-wide portion that flows onto the project site, It Is proposed that this region of runoff be collected and routed to the on-site drainage facliity. As such, this a;ea is being considered as part of the pre-developed site and is not part of the upstream basin. There is also an upstream basin to the east of the Mercer Island Pipe Line that would be bypassed through the site and around the onsite drainage facilities. This basin consists of runoff from a portion of l2!fh Place SE and the 19th Ct SE cul-de-sac along with the surrounding homes. Runoff from this basin is collected and routed by a series of catch basins and storm pipes to an existing ditch along the east side of the pipeline. A l2-lnch culvert crosses the Mercer Island Pipe Line and discharges runoff Into the anslte Wetland "0". Runoff from this upstream basin and from Wetland ~D" would be collected In a separate conveyance system and routed through the site. The report states that the project should not pose significant negative impacts ta the downstream drainage caurse. The propased Level 2 Flow Control would restrict the flow of the 2:year release rate to 50% of the pre-developed site and is proposed to provide adequate mitigation to prevent any future drainage complaints as a result of this proposed site development. Downstream capacity Issues have been observed and the area Is cansldered a nuisance necessitating qty storm water maintenance work. It is unclear, With a Levell downstream analysis, If the proposed project would exacerbate the downstream capacity issues. Therefore, the Environmental Review Committee Issued a mitigation measure requiring the final drainage report Include a more detailed downstream analysis (Exhibit 22). Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2.1, a Level 2 downstream analysis for J4 mile from the project site Is required. Staff recommends the applicant be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreement(s} far the s.hared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the.document(s} shall be submitted to Current· Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. latecomer's Agreement: Nt A Staff Comment: The development Is unlikely ta provide utility. Improvements that may also be required by other developments or ~y future development of other parcels In the vicinity. Water and Sanitary,sewer: HEX REPORT FINAL aty of Renton Department 01 Co./ty & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUMINARYPLAT p~aiy Plo,t Report & Recommendation LUA13-o01572, PP, ECF, CAE Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 Page 32 of 34 There Is an existing 8-lnch water main stubbed to the site in SE'20th Court, In SE19thCourt and SE 18th Court, Extension of a hew 8-lnch water main and new hydrants within the plat Is required and Is curre'1t/y proposed to the satisfaction 0/ the Development Engineering Division. Final engineering permits will be required to be submitted and approved prior to construction. The site is located In the City 0/ Renton sewer service qrea. There is on B-Inch sewermain In SE 18th Street. 'Extension 0/ sewer main ,through the public streets, and Individual side sewers to. serve the Individual lots Is required and Is currently proposed to the satls/action 0/ the Development Engineering Division. Final engineering permits will be required to be subinitted and approved prior to construction. I J. RECOMMENDATIONS:, Staff recommends approval of the Reserve at nffany Park Preliminary Plat and requested and Critical Area Exemption as depicted in Exhibit 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 11 mitigation measures Issued as part of the Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014. Z. The applicant shall be requited to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost pOints (where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting the following: a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots and a lS-foot wide vegetated buffer surrounding the subject site with spacing consideration given to those trees being retained to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall Include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The landscape plan shall reflect proposed curb cuts and pedestrian connectlon~. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan andlaridscaplng plan depicting curb bulb- outs where on'street parking Is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approiled by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The applicant shall be required to limit all retaining walls to a height of no more 6 feet unless located within a required front yard setback then the wall(s) would be limited to a height of 4 feet. Wall elevations shall be required to be 'submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and Development Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. Alternatively, staff would be s~pportlve of the applicant utilizing terracing (the forming of hillside Into a number of level fiat areas (terraces) between retaining walls) in order to Increase the height of a wall system when the maximum height of a single reta ining wall is InsuffiCient. The following standards shall apply to terraced slopes: a. Terrace Width: No portion of a retaining wall shall be construed to contribute to the width' of a terrace. The width of any terrace shall be equal to the height of the tallest ,abutting retaining wall; however, the,lTllnimum terra.ce wi!ith shal,1 be two feet (2') and the maximum 'required width shall be fIVe feet (5'). Terrace width shall be measured from the back edge of a lower retaining wall to the foremost edge of the immediately succeeding and hlgher,retalning wall. HEX REPORT FINAL City 0/ Renton Deportment 0/ Com,. & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREUMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 prell.TV Plat Report & Recommendation LUA13-C0157Z; PP, ECF, CAE Page 33 of34 b. Terrace landscaping: Terraces created between retaining walls shall be permanently landscaped with a miXture of shru!>s and groundcover (trees are' optional) In conformance with the standards of RMC 44-o70.F, landscaping. Landscaping provided In front of retaining walls and within terraces shall ,contribute to any landscaping required by RMC 44-o70.F. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. ' 6. The applicant shall eliminate Individual access directly from internal public ,streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060J and K. The reliised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 7. The appilcantrevise the proposed mitigation plan to depict,all retaining walls on site, including lock 8t load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C. The applicant shall also Identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation f~r such Impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8-120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The temporary buffer Impacts conSisting of minor Intrusions or di,sturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soli amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning ProjeCt Manager prior to construction permit approval. 9. The applicant shall provide creation of additional wetland buffer, associated with Wetland 'E', In order to offset .the Impacts resulting from the requested exemption. Enhancement in conjunction with creation may be allowed in order to offset the Impacts. Specifically, the applicant is encouraged to provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E' buffer Immediately abutting SE 18th 51. A revised ,mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning, Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 10. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 11. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill Is Imported prior to construction. 12. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall ,submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. 14. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar , River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction'permit approval. HEX REPORT FINAL l City 01 Renton Departinent 01 Co,Anity & Economic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PREU"1lfNARY PLAT Hearing Date: November 18, 2014 prelnary Plat Repart & Recommendation LUA13-D0157Z, PP, ECF, CAE. Page 34 of 34 15. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed rlght-of~waV). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Managerand the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 16. The Pr!;!limlnary Plat plan shall be relilsedso that no more than 4 lots galhlngaccess lila a shared driveway have at least one lot meeting minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.0 (a minimum of 80% of the required lot width/40feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street .shaU only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In order to comply with the recommended condition the following would be required: proposed Lot 17 would be required to be widened from 32 to 35 feet along the cul-de-sac and take primary access from the shared driveway; Lot 14 would be required to be widened ·from30 to 35 feet along the cul-de-sac and take primary access from the shared driveway; proposed Lot 38 would be required to be widened from 20 to 35 feet along the cul- de-sac and take primary access from the shared driveway; and proposed Lots 78 and 81 would be required to take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction pimrilt approval. 17. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines Intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots. be a minimum oDS feet In width .. SpeCifically, proposed Lots 14, 15, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet In order to comply with the cO'1dition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 18. The applicant submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet In width where the side lot lines Intersect with the street right-of-way or for radial lotS are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, proposed LotS 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which Includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed In Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards (see Access discussion above). The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. . 19. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault withl(l Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements o.utlined under RMC 4-7-080M.2. 20. The applicant shall be requlr'ed to create a homeowners' aSSOCiation and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared Improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plat Approval expires seven (7) years from the date of approval, If approved prior to January 1, 201S, otherwise the approval would expire five (5) years from the date of approval. HEX REPORT FINAL .------ ""-MNa&£r-. ." ..... -'OOMiC' .. ... ..... 1-OGI ____ _ OTIWn __ -i!I .. --- I I II i 111'111111'11, 11111 •• ................ 1 a.J ~ .-..... --:-.-.&. ... _-........ _- ---..:- : ........ i_ ... _---mWil __ . ... =-----== • •• WASFuNGl'QN FOJlES'I'R:yCONSuLTA.NI's,INc. fQR~~TFlY~Np vJ;GETATlQN lVIANA~eMEf'fT SPECIALisTS . ~ ,. ~ ,. , ~-, -" "', . " -, '-' i;~~IC~~~~d~~:;;~::~~::~':";~:~14:'~~:\:'2~I:~:?;~::M~~&~~ritm~~~~~:~~~~~),~:;,f~;~~1~§~1~~~£f~~t~Kt}JZ:~1%~~, Renton, wI.. Prepared for: B8i'bara Yarington, ~cml~yTJ.SA .. Pre ared b Washington FpteS ..... ·' CoilsUltlirits. , Inc . .... 1> ' .. y: U7 .Date:June6,2014 Introduetion Theprojtlct propoJiciritisplanning to co~t:ruct II nwC)7!ot subltiVision on 21.66 acres at8B i 8th StreeJ ill Renton, W A; . The proponent has retained WFCI to:. " Evaluate lind 'inventory all trees on the site pursuant to the requirements of the City of Rlmto.n Tree prot~cdon Ordinance. o Mal<~recomm.endatiollS for retention of significiuit trees, illongwith requU-ed protection and cu.~tlJral rnea~ures. . 'ObserV~tions Methodology , WFClhiis Wlilulited trees 6 incheS dilinietefat breast height (DBH)an<i larger in thep!'9Posed Pf!ljc:piarea. and BSSesS(li,t their potential to be lp,corpomted into the new project. Thetretl .. evaluation phase Used meth\1do1ogy deyelope<lby N:~ldaMllth~lIyand Dr. James Clark Intheit 1998ptibllcation Trees ,and Development:· A Tecbnicill Guide 'to Preservation .of Trees During Land Development, . . Site Descnptloii The 8it!lw~p~i9l.1S1y l()~.J;llan)' yelirsl1$o i\tId was not replanted. The.trees on the site are all ,naturallyregenerat~. .. J:1i.:ve .l1mall Wetll!lI$.·at'!i located on the site. There are no stfuctures located onthemtil. 'Ji,.;,re are manj.trails thro,ugbo~t~~ite; Entire Document Available Upon Reques ------------------------------------------- •• • Entire Document Available Upon Request W$TLANlJ1)ETERMINATION . RJiS:QR.;VE AT TIFF.4NfPARlf 'l'rellmlnaryPlat City of Rentt)n, WllIllilogtt)o Pr~pare4for: Barbara Yarliigton . Heniey USA, LLC . ~1100 Main Street,~tdte 10~ nel!evIlej WA 9$004 l'rqJared by: C.Gal'ySciUilz Wetland I.ForeSt Ecologist 7700 S. LakerJd.ge Drive S~ttJe, WllsbJllgt_t)o ~8~18 206-772:-6514 . , EXHIQIT~ ,-------------------------- • • FISHANJ) WILDLlFRHAuIl'AT AsSEssMENT Entire Document Available upon Request -' ,----------------------- -------------- • XnvLromnentaC!Assessments ant:C~edi"tiQ.' n. .. . . '" • .As$oaa1l:~ &ttIlll SdelDl.~, fu,!g,o . -.. SubS1!rface Bl,tplgf8,tiiin.G~91oglc fJ:!Izar<1. 8J1dLlniited Geotecllhical Bn~iIIg Rep9rt 'JI'llB!'FJ.\.NY PARK Sim Prepared for Renton Schooll)JStrict #403 'Project No. KB120359A SepteiI1ber~. 2012 Entire Document Available Upon Request • • PI{a;LIMIHARY 'TIE(:HNICA~ I~FOR.M.tiON R.PQ~T Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBtts ., ,',.". Reserve atTlffilnyPati( S.t. 18th Stre~t €lOci 1.24thPI~ceS:E. Renton, Washington Prepared for: H~nley USA; LLC 11100 Main Street, Suite 1 00 Believue, WA eaQ04 Npvernber 12, 2013 Revised February 24,2014 OurJQI! No. 16Q55 •• • Revised Transp.orlatloll IrnpaCt Analy$is ,RESERVEAf TIFFANY PARK Entire Document Available Upon Request Prepared Jor: Bargliausen Cc:insultlnQ EngIneers, Inc. Aj>i1l2014 Prepared by: 71/transPQG.RQUP 11730 118th AVenue NE, Suite 600 KlJ1<larid, WA eao34-7120 Plione:425-821.:a665 Fax:.425-825-8434 , www.trarisPOlir~\Jp.cOm @2014 Trenspo Group. • _,,0 • -.;1'- '-\ . EXHIBItF1C). & .... 30-..... ',31 es,' , .'32 ¥,~ .... I I x I xii x Ix; -: ~ :: 0;'. ,('". r::~ .~ ~_ :,: ; X, I xl xl f'I' ', .. 1 . " , ....:J.:o..,; x ''II;'. ~ ~., ? .~-x~ ~ ,)x; ,X, X eX:"':; ':lCo: 'X: ", "'I-' .'.: It ·x ~ F"Ji: ," I'· '.' ," ··lx:\, .. . ,1,:1-, :I,:} d:" iiC· , ,I, 'I "1' < ~ ,_'::i ~;' •• '-J!: lil';'LLk"I'i ': X •• X '1',' .IclC.' h;"Il:::::IblHHHHb---t ~.!.;I~ ~£~ ' .. II I:x:' ·-··~~f.:r! .. o '~ 1 01' 1"1 . 'X '.A'" ,x C .. " x 'x I' t>i.l'x't: " . 'x: .,' ':X'. .: :x!!:·!;. :-<:~I;· __ -- m":"··'.'d'" x' 'R7 ffi I "xl' T Tdl": .~ ?:-, ,: -,'~ '~: ";:11t:, ·:d;!; ,lilll4:~;); .,;. ~ i4TBeedOi ·x X ·X' 'x r~;-~-; ~ " c, r :,:: t:' :. >.:. !;X: / -;. " ~ ~ - X X X 'xl -,' .'~ '(.\", r '~; ~:'. , : _ '-:'X~ ~x " OJ :, !+: -.:I.", i I.e: . Ix 'x :; ~~. .~) j rx~ ~ ~ !:~J ,I· :1\ ,I" 'I t .. 't.:.'L ,x: '{x:-k-:+~ ;+-~I;xd~ tx+x: 4···1: '1'" f ~.' ,·.:t· . Ix I" 'I. '" :V:*7 j( ;. " '1 T~r'f~t "rx{"tFfX! i:J: .;::~' ~'~X' x- , ,: tH: "hxt, t·, I. I'~ :',. .:. Jr' m~'X' , "'-"I'x ~:.: :4ffi'X: ., '" y; f.'·'·~ X I' .. ·X' , ,'I;? x ,.' : -";_ )", -;" '.'t •• " I~ ," -"'I" ";~ 1"Au .. I'"x;il.·" . 5"" .'1:', I;.x:I"· ,': '("j ~, l c·'; , .. ' ' .. ~I',x·· ':: . :' :: .. ·Wi:.:": ~ .~ ,OTBeedon" .---' --~ IX· :-x X , '; :;, c --. ---,';1,·, \ .. , '. ";1:: L'" ;1 SI', J:-" I" ~:' .... ' .x· ;i<;"';!, ,. 'I' T .. ;1 x:h·hx·I:-··I' ex ex':' ~:'"':.'. . x ; . : .. /1: ~l, ' ~ .~'.' I,.;t.lcx .•. :" '~j ~x; , 'flTTf'llJ ;.. ": ~ -0 :~ -i ~ \ , __ ' 'f .~. ,. 'il: .+ . ,I ,~I·. I"iT +,. . t'LJh "', "Ie, :Ie ;1', .'1 .. Ie'· ~ ~ . ~ t,X-; ':7. -;1 '!f~~~ ;;'7':"'7 ~x~ ~;..{:_~ ~,,;, ~-i:, :',-; '" s1'~_'_~*:' .+~. ~Ir--'d:t, ' .'1.[ ;:' 'l":~I:f , "Il" I I'~' 'I ""'1',;,:; I· "." . II' ':k'!.' ;,1," m· ""'-·"·"" ,.,:, ,~-'.-~ '-'!. ~ '. .:,,:: {jf ;-: ," fo: t· .h: .jr"I!'·'-,· I'x·,. . I' '" "1"',' .[=->" . mi "" ..... , •• ,," " -".", '~ ;:'-..•.. . -J::'~~I ~::.: ~~/~ ~~'x~ 't ~;. I,x' f0S.'~' rx- ~'X .. " ~-~ :x , ·AK'j· Ix Xi, .-!e -'."i*,"d··-· ..Ie" "''';: "I;:-~ ~ J;q-:l~it~r".~I" -_1'<-•. ",:~. ":-::'~,I ,;.' :' "-'tlj(~,?I':: ',. ;)( -,( . :x, I, ·~I''';~·;: '.,J;, ~i~ ;~~ (;:,~ , I Lx 1:'", I·' '1 '"L' k'·"i "' .. :,' ,." , .. ~ .. ~~ :k ,I·" , "1.' ',k..\I' '+ "" ' "_I~·I' ~ .• " I, .. , . " "or tlfR"-;+, I,x, • • -fii----_ .. .. -...._u.p -~~ ....... ---. .... ., ........ -- '7 fa.l1' ID'rAJfl" PAR ~ ,~.-• SB18th:sireet· . lt~Il,WA ?rep;ni:d for: 'aaibara Y a,ringtoQ.lIenleY USA Prq)1ifti(i by: Wa$ington Forestry CO~ts. me. Date: ' AUguSt 27, 2014 I ' . . Iiltroductlon '. ~ . • il-'-< -' .'-' -"'-",. '. -' . . . -' ~. ~.~ , RECEIVED . ---, ,. -, AU~2 92014 CI1YOF RENTON ·PLANNING DIViSiON 'I11eprojeetpropoi\ent is p1annh1g to.coilsttUctsl).cW 9~Jo! ~~ivisioli on 21.66 acres at SB l~th street jnJlen:ton, WA. The propoiient hlIs rei$e4WFGI to:· ' '!' Bvlilua~eBlld inventory iiti treesop the s!te pU!'Suimt to the. requiremepts ~fthe City of Renton Tree PrOtection Ordinance. . .. ~eJe!:Ommendatioi1S for~ti<i!l,of significant trees; ,810M w#Il,required protection and,CUltutal ineas:u~, . . , O~!lervations 'Methodology WFel hsseV!!JUilted trees 6 nl(:heS diame~~ at breast height (PBH)!Ill!llarger in the proposed proji:(:tarea. and assi:ssedjheir PQfential to I;e inCtlIpofated, Into tile ~e\V JlI'OjeCt. The treeeV8luatiol). pllase used m:ethodOlQgyd!lv~lc!pe4by Nelda MathCl).Y 1Il1!l Dr· J~elI. Clark in th~ f998publiciltioii Irees8!ldDeyeliioment:: A 1'ec1rnjcal.Gtiide toPreservati!iriCifIreeS DuringLandDm~ . . . .... .. Site DescrlptIol1 . The sHe was,pteviouslylogged ~llny yeatS ago and wBsno,t repJ,III\ted.The trees oii thes1teliJ:e 'all naturally regenet:llted.¥ivesmhll wetlands .~.locat~ on thesfte.There me nos~~ located on the site.Th~e are fumy tnills:~ll~out theslte: ORESTRY" tREE APPRAiSAL oHAZl nON MANAGEMENTOENVIRONMENTALSTt r or /n~ ~ 01 Atbai1CuirUTe iiri<! ~:O!iUjJ~ Entire Document AVailable Upon Request • Entire Document Available Upon R~quest • Mem6randu~. ~ .:/:::::>:. ,":'. -.:;~. ~:~"~'":.'" 7:".-· ... ;-, .--:-',," ~.,:-'---.-:'. ~'-.-.. ~:'.,.,'~:--,...,..-,-~ -,:-~ .•. Tei; GC~ 505 RllhAYiiriuiiS,; Su1ra JOO.5ea\ile, WAP8104 h206,4!6.osisl F206.4iM516 .~ .' ., --" .-.. . . '-' " -., '".' -," , " '--'-." -. -,. I\~~ iili)lilqlls.d1¥ gfl\eotoi!' City ·of iR~nt()n Plannhlg .oivisfon [)ate: 'lte: ~v~ fJm.Perieet May 16, 2014 Tiffany'~~ .:.t~~poi'ti~Qii SecOn~~ RevieW ". The ~I\~~ !11!'1SP'?rtat/on Impact ~~;R~e ai: Tiffany ~ ~po Group. ~pr1ll.0 14"(T1A) 1t.I~ ~ iideql!~t.eIy lJmeht:l.ed and expandea .to m~rpora~ revll!W eoirime,ntii brOught by citizen commilrits and an 'Iilltlal secondary· review conducted.by Perteet. . .. Altt.~~there remain some concerns With the re.vi~ect report; thE! 1"!lilt!l9d.ology .and analySIs'. appliect !~the 1'1A' are gen~lyapprop~te ~. pi"odua:! .data· 5ufllcient ~ aecunttely eValuate the aritlclpated Imp~ pf thepropose(j development. /) ""'Ii ~oW~uppoft the findings a1Ki cOJlClu~l0ris afthe nMs'ed I'epoi't. Spetllic ~El'IIElVt~. I. lri respo~to cOinmen~.on the IriltlalllA. the ~ repClrt ~nsadditional data, Including: II, AMIdon pfa~bn ''Traffle and Pedestrian Safety". b. Acidltion of avehlde speed~rt(AppencfQ( D). c. Mdiid. ~~~.HAv8!iable SIght Dl$m:eat Edmands Ay~ue SElS~ 16ti! Street! E~iii9iids WaY se;" . d. AdlfitlOn C!fone Intl!~~ to the study area.lntet:lIectlon 13 (Edm'(iilds Avellue'SElsE 16th Sti'eetlEdmOiidsWa SE. '.' ......... , .. '.' y e. ~mOncls Way h!lS~n I\ddedto the study area roadway netViOrk. f, SE 16thS~ haS been added to ttie'Study Bi'eilr6adWayiletwork. Ilo Ad!l!tlo n.al ttafflc Volume counts have beenadd~ for fl,oyaI HiQi D~, iVget t)fjV~ QIldfor Edl)lOllds. Av~nu.!!lSE 16th $~Ei:lril9nds Way, . . 2. the prQp<:is!ld proJect site plan haS beenillodlfled. although external ~ Ij.I)d ~ num~ 9f 10ts rerJ)ilntJIe ~EI. The new.plan .~~ .. ty((;I f!ag t~~ with shared~, : Th~ are no tJ'iI{lic;o~~naI C<?ncerns with thel110dilled sltja'pian. 3. 'Th'e reylsiid TlA caUsotji: aa,ncerro ViIm Inadeqtuiteslgl1tdi~na:!for f!l>1It1tIlQ!Jnd.~ ~ Monroe .A¥l!I}JI!! ~E!liJp~c~lng S~ IBib S.uee~(o~ of .the tWPdl~ proJeCt aCcess routes). 'fhli Il\lti~t1on ~Ied 'fot-~~anew StOp ~iilrementfor s?Uthbollllll M~ Ay~ue C# '~$1 remoVal of parking on thenori:hem ~de ~sJ; I!tI1StfEl~ ~er ~tk>n would reduCe the 'i~etiho<xl of.tcilijsicin: The l!lstiillatiori of ilS~ ilgj'i at this ioca,tlon WOUld be lnco~jstent'w1th thii ~eneraJ JaCk OfI~ter'$ectlb,~s)mi~l!ln tJie.l:9m.lInJt¥and may !lot ben~.pai1Ic;ulirlyif J)~NI Were Pl'9hlbltedlnl!!!m1ted I!!J!a ",{SE 18i:\l Stj'i!ei;~p1'Oadilrigthe ltItersectiOn. 4~' the pi'Oiettti1p dlstiibi)tlonc6Uldbe debated IlmstiJljiresentS arejnsentiitiVe level ~f If!! .a(:\: I1lldseems. adequate for this analysis. The dlsc,l!~!olJ or-trip tl!stribui)on notes 'it isbas~'on ~aftiIi ,*tdies, ye1: IIOIlj!are r:ef~. . . I;XIHIBtt 1~ • "f,echnicalMemoranduM < "-'.' ~ •• '., -'" ',. •• • ',,,<,,.,,". ",' ." , StIiiI,4Od kiJAk"J,WA~80Jj fi';"ftiJi~?2 4'#6 F.D/(42i) 827:9J71 F..r<!m: COp'I~s: pa~: SubJec:t: Project No.: I • Entire Document Available Upon Request " '~:iimroo~;~9ir~ ~ty9flteQt9ji ~,(:uttAAtI'~llIJ!Og Dar .. Miller Senior WetIandSc1entist "~" ,._,' '" . ". ....... " (425)m-79n April 3,2014 ReseJ;\'c ~t Tiffany Park W~d,belinea:tion Review . 32385.A TJ:Us reView ~s to !:he Pie1i rn j ri a.y Plat appIicauonfor the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton tJ,JAl3-0(l1572) 6ub.tiii~ by tne applicant. NovastlirDcvelopmen,t. Inc., to the qtyof RentOn (City). The.proposed Reserve at Tiffany Parkis kicatedgelierany to l:hees,stofT~y Park, to thencirtb6fSE 1581h Street, and south and west ofPi~ Avenuei'S~. Otak~ been aSked by tbeCity ofRenion(tbe.City) to review tb~ s\lbrw.~ c#.tic~~ d«Ument Il!idlq prOVj~ commelltsregardingits f!,pp~cability to !:he RentonM\Wcipal COd~ (RMG),~pCfificiilly~ Section 4:-3- 050, Critit;al,;t\t6,s R,~tio~. ." . The follciWingdocwnents were CeViewed.ili terms of compliance with the critical ar~ se~ons of theCity~e: o 'WelltlJ1t!])tMiiinatioi/: IWtfiIi tit Tfffo'IJPark, prepared by C. Gary Schulz.date"Febp1~ '28, 2014; oPlartset for the Re.serve at Tiffany Park, P'ceIiminatyPlat, prepared by Barghausen C~l)sUlting Engineers, inc"signed FebfuQiy 21., 2014. ' o 'I'~~hriical..In.f(JrtnatioriR.ep9rt, pre~ by 13Sigha1l5e1i Consulting Engineers,inc.,,(jated ,N:oYernller 12, c2.Q13, and reVised Febi:uaty24; 2014. . TheWetIanaDetertnination Identifies three Categoty 2 wetlands. and oQeCQ~goty,3 w~.d on the site, whiCh are required to have 50-foot and i5-footl!ulI¢rs,feSpediveli. Theteport indicates ~at wei:land·buffer averaging'is proposed for theprqjec;t slte. and olltlirtesthe riltloriale for lIleetliigthe requirements f9i:J>Uff~ayerilgin~i;l~~b~4!theRMC; , • lechhiCaIMem()r~ndum 102JO NB i'imh D.fi!:o. :$iiJli4fx.J IWAIml4 WA9$O)J P_ (42S) 822-#46 PiD«42iH27:9.i71 to: From: Copies: Date: Subject Project Ng.: • Entire Document Available Upon Request ~. --~ ROciI.eTiiIiiiiOilSSen!or P1annei-. ___ , _ ._ J _ _ _' •• , qtyof Renton" Current !?~ DatceyMiileri SeQ/or Wet/andSgleritjs.t (425)73f}:-79n " d.,,' _._,., "' _'. J~9,2614 Reserve at TjffanyPlllk WetlandD~QnJl.evlew 32385.A. ThlsteViewpeita!ris to thePrdiminaryPlitt ~1~onJQT theReseWe at TiffanyPark (city Of ReiltonLUAl3-1lO1S72) subniltted by W~ applicant; Novastar Developmei1t, Inc., todie City of Renton (<::ity). Thej:lropasei:l J1~ :it.1'lff3,ny ParklsloCated generally to the east or Tjffany~ark, tothenorthofSB.~StreEt;andSO\Jthand~ofPieiceAvenueSE. TheCityofRent~(th~ qi:y) ~ ~(rl that Otak reviewtheCriticillarea docuruentationanli ~ ~ . regarc!!ngltslilJlPlicabilitytotheRefitOhMuiliclpalC6de0lMC),~y,Sett!on4-3-050, Criti~ .ti..r6ls::aegu]ati0ris. OilMay7, 2014,ameetingwa,s h.eldonthe.5ItebetvA:.m the city, Henley USA ~COii.SUJtirigEngIileers~ G Sdrutz,SClUIidviewCOnsUltants and . btakThepujj)&eofthe rneetingwasto~~IX1t~tiid~~ anddi.sdissthe~ iii Otai<s ~dum ~edAprll3,2()14. Thefoll~~1! ~~ IntetriJs of ci?rtipiianOOwith the aitl~ ~~Oris of t4eR:ep\Ql1.M~cf~Code; . f)R~ c:t¢t plan ~(or the Reserve at Tiffany Park Pr8!mInary Pl:It,pr~ by .B.;Ir~~ ~June ).0, 2014; . . oR~letier (1'O!ll Gary SdlQlzlo Ms. B;utma yarlhgtcirl (}:Ienley. U~), ~edJ)Jlle3, 2014; o Revised W etl4n41?dltllliIlO#On: ~.ttlTiffiit& Pdrk,preparoobyC. Gary SChulz; ClatedJ)Jlle ~~~ .. . o WetJand Dilll7lJinaJion:Ruem aiTi/folfJ pdrn, ~byC.GaiySdru!z, ~ea ~ebruary~, 2014; . . .'. . o PIan set foftneReserveat Tifi!lm'~ar1cr~p)at, ~ byBarghausen C~ Engtrteets,Inc.; SIgnal r~~?, 40}4 .. r • 2Sf07 Harbor:vieWDr~ve, Gi.g Ha:r.bor, WA 9,83~~ 'Pnone:253.'$14,'8952 Feli %:2 53 .51,4 i. 8 9~ 4 • " '" technical Metnotandum' To: BarbaraY~dng'ton,Henley USA ElieNumber: ~219.(j601 From; :Rticbeal Villa:l!p'd Bill House, Soundview Date:' " Pebruaryl1,2014 CQi1sJ.!Jta.i:\tsl.I.C Re: Amendment to the Fi8h~d Wildlife Assessment for the Reserve l!tTiffany Park dated Jan.uary 16, 2014 Dear ~a~l:!ata, 'Henley usA, LLC is proposing to develop ninety eight (98) single-family re.~idelitia.l lots on a 943,331 square .foot(21.66-~ctes) site locally known as th~R~setve at Tiffany P,!tk (project). ne,8ubjectprpperty Is locate4 ea~t 6f the interst!\ction of'Southellsf 18th Street arid Monroe Avenue Southeas~,in the City of Renton, ViA 98058 (King County). The subject property iii situated in the Southeast'!, of Section 2't,'i'oWntihip 23 North, Rapge 5 Bast W.M. and consists of four tax parcels (King County Parcel NUmbers 212305"9044, 212305-9051, 212305 c9154,and 212305-9061): A. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment foi: the Reserve at Tiffany Park (Soundview Consultants, 2014) ll~sesSing . habitat and potential speCies impacts' was 6ubmittecl in January 2014 to the (;jty of ReMon. Su§sequellt project revisions require (ut~l)~r assessment of potential ':impacts to fish alld wildlife habitat and sp~cies.,The revised pIeri At,tf~des the addition orsev~ral dedicated openspacettacts throughout the subject property, inel)1,ding critical area tracts to piotcctwedtnds alld. significant trees and ,Ill! open space/passive .recteationai use tradonll pgition 'Of the site,The .temaiilderof 'the ptoposedproj~d will i ll C1ude developmentlnasligi!ily different configura#~n in,9tdetto U;1corpClrate the new ,open space tratt~(J}arghausen,Consuli\!lg Ellgineers, Inc., January 2E1, 2014). The reQ)ailldef of this Technical,Memotil;ildUin ~ include a 'revised assessment of piqject impacts according ~p the revised pians and.is itl~nded ,for use as an ame!l'dme'ntto ¢e Qriginal ¥ish arid WilClUfe J;IabJt!lt ~s'se.'s~1!l~ilt da,ted Janu!ir}r 16', 2()14. , ' ' -, .. ' -" -,,-. .t21?()~!~oYlstar -Renton. Entire Document Available Upon Request Fisb Ait.<! Wildlife Hablbll Amendment IEXHlXBIT 1,6 SoundView.ColilultiritiLLC -c :' .. -'.-, .. " . Februaty I!; 2g14 • '2~()7 :}{a~l>o.r~jew ptlve Gig Harbor. W·A!>8335 Pho(ie: 253.514.895'2 P'P~ :25) .514.8 9 5 4 " , • , Entire Document Available llPon ReqUest 170: File Number: 1219.0001, From: Rach~111 Villa, Soun4viewC!!nsult@te LLC J)!lte: Re: Amendment to the Technical Mem9t,\nd1!tJi for the JleserVeilt Tlffliny Park dated Februuy it, 2014 " Dellt Blltblltll, Heh,ley USA.LLC is proposing to develop riitietyseven (97) single"family residential lots on II 94~.3?! square foot (21.66 ,a(;fes)si,te locally kuown as the Rese.rve at Ti'ffanY.'Fark (project). 'The subject ptope~tyis located cast of the intccsccti()D. of Southc:ast 18th Street a\ld l\{C)ntoe l!,VCn\1e . Southeast. in the CitY of Renton. ViA 98058 .(KingCo1;Ulty). ~e subjedpropertyis sjtulI.t~dJo the SouthclI.st V. of Section 21. Township 23 Nort1!. Range 5 EastW;M. lind coosistsof four tax Plltcels (King County Parcel Number~2i2305,9044. 2U.305,9Q51.21230H1S4,.and 212305-9061). . .Soundview Consultants LLC prepared a fish lind, wildlife .habitat IIssessll1ellt4atei! JIII\\ls,ty 9.20;4 .. Su1!~equeiit projeetsub'mlttlil to the 'Cityof'Renfooprompt,ed th~rd .patty review by Otak Ioc. 1;>uring tbjril p#ty review. Qpt¢~iously W1iMntifiea we~and(Wetlai1d E) was identified in the wcstem pprtion of the site. Project revisipt:ls \1ic;te then cOl1ducted tc) lIcco'mmo'date ptescirvation ofWetlandE. ,Theso project reVisions rcqui!c an up~ated assessment of pc>tentia,! lD1pacts tC)fishl\hd wild1.ife ha1:>itilt ilnd protected specieS at the Reserve at Tiffanypiuk. The revised project plan iIncludes th.~ tc;wova19fone residential Jpt t~pla,ced by 'I'ractM f6r the ptesetvationof: W~tlaod E, No furtheralteratioos lire proposed to theprpjc;ct. 1'l)ls te<:hriical Me~Qral1duni piovldes lin updated assessment of . project impacts to fish lind wildlife habitat according to the revised layo!,~s:\ild is intended for use liS sp amendment to the .original habitat asscs~ment teport dated January9,20H and prior updllte proVided intlle Tec~calMem9t!ll1!iuiri ~y Souhdvievt Co"nsultaiits i,.LC. t1atedFebriiary 11. 2014. . ~~op~~~d "R:evisiol1:s . ~ , The ptoposedptQje¢t revisioiis include additiooal preservatio~ of .natiy~ open space, mch-iding ~etl!llld habits,t. thr.otigh establishment of Tiact i-.£.Thls tiact is located in the 1219.0001 Novtst ... ·" Renton Flsh.~(fwlldlif. Habitat Amendment Page t 'or:1" EX.UBi1r17 Jw'wM( ... '. 1 e .... . * .•. .... V ... 'IM _____ cm ___ -• .ntlre Document Available Up<m Request DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND EcoNOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0 R A" N 0 U M DATE: November 10, 2014 TO: ~ocale"Timmons, Senior Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Steve lee; Development Engineering Mal)ager ~ Traffic Concurrency Test -Tiffany Park Reserve The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary approval for a 97 lot subdivision. The project site area is 21,66 acres and is in primarily R-S and some R-4 zoning classifications. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE lSth Street and Is bordered by the Cedar ~iver Pipeline along the southern property line and the Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The proposed access to the site would be gained from SE lSth Street with secondary access extended from 124'h Place SE. The applicant is proposing to extend these road stubs into the site in order to provide public access and circulation with internal residential access streets to each lot. "", The proposed redevelopment would generate approximately 1030 daily trips. During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 103 net new peak hour PM trips. The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.0 as follows: Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes Within allowed growth levels Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes Slte specific streetimprovemelits to be completed by project Yes " Traffic Concurrency Test PasSes EXHIBIT 19 • s.,..,. -......, ............. , .... , , ............. -......... .-.-.a,.. ..... a - -......., .............. Pc , ...................... D ............... ' ,,,. 1NII ,.". -_0.., ----..... ----. '-"""' ....... ,... ............... ~--- EXHIBIT 20 RENTON TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MAP ._----_ .... _.- Entire Document Available Upon Requ,. D,RAf:fENVIROI\IMENTAL'REVIEWCOMMITTEE REPORT • M • "'ProjecfName: ' ReSerVe at Tiffany ~tk OwlJer: ~plrconi: ' Contad} ProliktLocation: P,oj~ surnrYlliry: Ro~ale '11m.(I1o!ls,5enlorPlanner Renton Sc:hool DIstrict; 300 SW ~ St; Renton;'WA 98055 , .... ' . -"" , HerileyuSNLlt, 11100 MainStreet,SultEflOO; BeJievue;WA98064 ., .. , , , " ). -. NoVaSt8roev:{nC.;WaynePo~er; i821S 72 rod Ave 5; Kent,WA9S0~2 n.eappllCII,nf ~as submitted a proposahequestlng SEPA EnvlronmentBl:RellleW and Prellinll\8ry , Plat approvalfor.li97-lot,sulidMslon(96Iotswlth,a 30%ttee retim~ionaitemailve'plan). the ,21;66 aCre ,site Is ICleated within theResl.den~l.:tJilwelUilg :urilts per acre ;(R-8)zo'nlng cI~sslflcatlon.'Asmall portion of the' site located . within theR'4 itorilngcliisslftCatlon.A11 pr9Posed lots:W6uld be located Within the R-8 zonlrisclasslflcatlon;The subject property Is located at the dead end ofSE lSt1>stbordered by the ~darRlverPlpellilealong the,sotithem property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along theeastempropeitY line. The 96 16tswould , result lria densltVncrii\oreJhan'S;70dwelllng units per acre. Lot sizes would range··from4;SOO $,quare~etto, 8;4s6'square,feetwlih;an ave,rage lot'slze:of5;399 square feet In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed'forsimsitlVe;areiis, treeretentlori, storin dr'alr'i8ge, acceSs, peilestriim c6nnections,and open space InCtudlngan (eliisting)lIege~ted,buffer along t~1l nort~ern ~1I"darylO'fe~.I!l Wl!lth. Access to the site would be gained from SE 19th Sf with seCondary access extended frorii 124t1> Place ,SE. The ,site Is ctirrentiyvacant With 1,305 slgnlftcant trees arid the applicant haspr~posed tei tetain147 ttee~(18B:trees:witlla30%free re~entlo.n alt!l!!lative pl~I). The appilCant has;submltied a Wetland Report; Drainage Rep'ort; Traffic Impact AricilySlS,.Geotedliilcal Eiigmeerlng stuily,.ArooristReport,Habitat Data Report, and JOdeperidentSetondary Studies for'Tr:ahsportatlcin, and lNetlands a,re included with the appn~ation. Thesl,fe Contains three Category 2 wetlands (lNetlanils 'A, C,arid, Oland' tWo Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B aM E). The,ap,pncarit Is requesting a critical Area EXemption ,forthe exteilsion ofSE lS""St thr:oughportlons,ofthe bufferassoclated,wIthVlietlilndE. Slte,Neq:21,66 acres ,STAFF. ,Staff ~ecommelldsthat the Einilronmental Review Committee'lsSue.a Determlilatlonof Non- RECOMMENDATI ',SIgnificance -Mitigated (DN5-M). ON: EXHIBIT 21 " Entire Documen_ Available Upon Request .. ' . " .,' . . ',: . . '.~ , .,' . '. f., ',.' • ""-mY·' " " . . : .. Sept~mber 25;~ip~4: ::,.~.c. . . .': 'CominunltY&Econci!i;IC:Oevefopmeilt Department '. ' . ' . " '. ..' . .... ... a."CI'i.Ip"vincent,·AdmlnlstratClr'··. ..' ". _ d' '. ..' " . ,:' ·.: .. Wa~hlil~ori sta~~:~' .:' .:' ,: ':.: .,' .' '. '.' '. . . .>" .. ' .. ' : " . .' ,Departm!!ritof,Ecology : . ..' . '." .' . . . . ..' ." ','C':' .' ' .. ;. 'Enviri:m'ment3i RevieW'Section : '. ' .. , .' .. ,....: '.' .... : '.' . ::·,'OBo.x 47703' .... :' .. ;.... .' '. ::" ,.... .... .' . : .. : OI\tml?ia,W~. 98'504-7703:: . ~:" .... : '.:" ". ,; ..... ,., .. ..•. . :.:,:. ·C. ":S~bJ~:~:: .' ' .• E~VI~O~~Erri~~ (~~~A) THR~~'~bL[) DET~~~I~An~~ ::". ' ....•. ,..:. ..,' ... · .' " , . . . .. :. ..'. .' .' .;: .: " ' . "'" . ~ • ':,': '" • ,. " ,",.,: • ) •••• : ••• :,": •• ,_:' I ':' :": _'. • ",." ••• :", ,,'. " •• ,.' .... ,.: ... , • '. ", •. :. .> • .. ' .' : .. "T~nsnil~ed herewith Is a. CQPY of the Enylro'nmental Deterriil!lCltic:in forthe 'follo"lling -.. "'" :. . . .. . : .:': '.: · .. pfoj~ reliiewed:bytlle Envir6nnfenta1 Review cOmmittee (E~C) oli Septe·mbed*,:. ' ... : .. " ....... ' .. ' : .- · .' .:i:·.:·.· . .2014~.: , . :,'.> .; .... ::':: . :.: ,::' . .... .' ,: : ... '" .' . ,'. . ' .. :: "~.:: .~. ~.< ':" .' . ~ ... ~: .' ,; .,' : .. ;~'.: '.' . . "'.: '. ,~ , . '.' ·.SEPA I)"ETERIVIIN.AttON ~ ;De~i!rmll1atlon of N~n.SIgi,Iff~an.ce MI~lgat~d(DNSM). " '" .'. .... .' PROIEcT'~ivrE:" . :..TI:i.e,Res~r:vea~ 'rIft.inY park· ..... : .... ..' .. ' . ,. . .-.~ , · ···jI~QJECr:NUMBERh·; '. LUA13.oo1S-7.2; itCF,PP'CA~: :'.' '. . '. .,.-' :,;.' .. .. \', ,'.: .. , ........ ~ .... .'.: ... : ...... : ... :.~ ... ':. 1-:' ';.: ..... ,," ........... : .. " .::':,", ,,: "" " .: .. ,:'.: ._:........ ", ". . . _ 'AppealsoUh'e'enVironmental C/etermlnatlon mu~ be-flledln iNrltlng.oh otbefore·S:OO... .' ... · ... ' : .... .. p.m:;.o~·OCiobei' 19,·2014; together witht"e:r~ulrea fe~ With: Hearing e,;aminet; :CItY ..... '::. .' '.': :. \:; ':'-', .... ··:.·Of RimtQf'i, '1055 So~th Gradyw.ay;·Renton"WA980s7, Appeals tcithe :Examinerare' .. ':, ..... : .. ",,, , .... '. ..:goyerned by RMC4-8~1iOati~"Inforinailori :regardlng the'appealprcicessf'!1ay be ...... , . .' .. . .' .-' ob~al~e~ffoli) the ciiy Clerl(s.dfflce;:(425) 43q.Ssl0 •.. ::>:". : -.... .. '. .' ... "., '. ::'., . . .... , :-:.:... • > ... ,. :;'l~a's~ '~fer t~:t~'~' e~~I~~j;d: NotlC~ ~f'~ri~fro~~~n~i O.et~~lna;IO~ fb~ :~tini;PI~te: .~ ':~.:< . '. .:"". . .'. "-. : .. :. : :·.~(ltaiis.: If yo~haveqii:e'$ti6~s; pl~ase:ta'lI n1eat.(42Sf4So.72t~;:-:. :'. '; '. . :._ . ':.'; ': ". "., '. '." .,"' .. :"', '. .'. . -:: :./ . '.' ' .. " -' '.:' . .": ',' ' ..... . ' '::. . ',', . : :" '.:,: .,' ',,: . :. ',' ~.' ". ,." .'._ '. ·:F~(~h~·.E~VrrQnm~~t~IRe~ieW,:C9mmittee,::·· . ,..." ':':'.,'.. ..' ... ',' ',," : .,;. ~, '. \' ": '" \. ; " " , , .' .' . ,. ". :" .. ' ',:' ,,'; '. ' . ,,' .. , ,,' : .. ' .~ .' .. ", " .; .. , :,~. " ' .'," : ',' , ,', : .. .. .. , '" . , , ' .... " ,"'. '., ' .. ' .. ,: .... . ,.', '. '" ,". ':' .!, , '. ~ ", . " , .' . . .'~ : '. '.' .,' , .. : .. : , .'. : .', . ,.,', ·t>.,::::",'" .. :.·:' ~ , . :': . , " " . '. ""': ~ ':' " , ," : ' .; ' .. " " ,,' "'. " , '",. ~~. . ,~ ,'. -' ." , , . " ~ .' ' .' ',' ,., ,.'" . .. ' .. ' ~' '. ..' ... '. ·'~closu..e : '.. . . ','," ", . " . . . . '" ,:' '. . '.' "" ,~ " ,:.:" : , .. ', . ' '.~ . '. '.' . · .'. :" .... .. cc; "Klng tou~w"st~ter.Tre.~~nt.I1~I~~n'· ........::-:. Ramin'p~o;;jd, wsooi, ili/iReglcn ":. . ". . .' . . ::': ...... B6YtI POWl'rS, !)epaitmentof Natural Resouices.... ·.Larrj.FlSher, l(,roFW .' . .. ..... " , ',,' . Kare~ Waiter, FlsheHes, Mueldeshc!ot Indian lrllre· . ':" ". ..OuwamI5IrTrl~'1 0ffI~.. ". '. . . '" Meilssa"calvert, Muckleshoot Culttiral Resources P,rogram' ". .. us Army corP, of Engineers " '" .... .., ... . ' ,,:. ~ '" . . ·Gretch.ri.Kllehl~r/omCllof:Arthaeolcis'(&Hlsto.ric·presery.ltrQn c· ... ',' . . \ ....... > _ ·.c.:>. ':,,' .' : .. , ,'. . , '.:'; '. . '.' ." . ,,', ;.; ','. " .:;.' , , ... ; , .;. <-:,:' :: ., ",.: ',-: .' .... '. ' ,; ' .. : .. ", "-. '.:. .:' ': .. '.' .... ' ..... .' .' ,.' .' . '., '~'. ''''~ .. ' ..... ,~.:: .. ,; " ' .... :,." ",: :: ..... . '~entohOtyl!an • 10SS~utI1lndyWay·. Renton,Wash)ngion " " .. " .. . .' EXHIBIT 22 :,: . , '~ . " " at Tiffany Park Pre~limlina! Community Meeting of Renton Planning staff Invite the public and all parties of interest to participate In a IComn1unltvMeetirill for the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat. Topics of Idl!icu!5sicm Include: project overview,public process, and partiCipation In the public process. Tuesday. September 9, 2014, 6:00 pm Tiffany Park Elementary (Cafeteria) 1601 Lake Youngs Way SE, Renton, WA 98058 I Fr"quently Asked Questfons Who Is the proponent for the Reserve at TIffany Park delielopment? Henley USA,"LlC. In 2013 the Renton School District's Board 01 Directors "approved a purth .. e and sale agree- ment with the applicanVdeveloper (Henley USA, LLC) to sell the subject site. • The agreement authorizes Henley USA to assess the property's suitability for the pioj!osed development, and obtain the necessary approvals In compliance with the City of Renton development regulations. Has the City of Renton taken aCtIon on the proposed development? No. The City has accepted the proJect lor review but has yet to Issue a declslon/deiermlnatlon on the. proposal. , Con the City of Renton deny the proposal or require the property be preserved In Its natural state? The City Is unable to prediJde single famlly residential development on private property In the R-S zone as Ions as the proposal complies wlth.theState Environmental POlicy Act (SEPA)and all development regulations found wlthh' the Renton Municipal Code. What will the City of Renton consider durlnBthePrelinilnary Plat and Environmental review? The CIty's review Is limited tD the development regulations 01 the RentDn Municipal Code and the State Erivl· rDnmental PDllcy Act (SEPA). The City will review the proposal with regard to the prDtect10n 01 valuable envl- ronmentalamenltles and compatibility with the surrounding area Including but nDt limited to: • Compliance with R·8 lone development standards and CityWIde property and development standards. • Preservatlon.of dralnag" patterns, trees, Identlfted crittcal habitat, and delineated critical are ... • Provision 01 public faclntles, access. trafflc clrelilatlon, drainage, "and utIIltfes. • Impacts of development upon the existing service levelsCTrafflc,.Parb, Schools, Fire, Pollce,eic.). Q; Has tha applicant submitted supporting documentation for review by the City? A: Yes. The applicant has submitted the following reports prepared by certlfled professionals: Drainage Report, TranspOrtatfon Report, Wetland Report. Fish and Wildlife Report, Geotechnical Report, and an ArbarlstlTree Report. • Alrreportsare available to the pub"c upon request and can either be sent electronically, viewed In person on the 6"' Floor of Renton Clty,Hall, or can be sent vi. mIn at. cost of SO.1S/page. Q; Has the City conducted an Independent review of reports provided by the applicant? Yes. In response to primary community concerns, regarding traffic Impacts and the' preservation ~of onslte lands, the City has conducted Independent Secondary iIevlew of the provided Transportation and Wetland reo ports. • Both Secondary Reviews are .vanable upon request to the public and can either be sent electronically, viewed In person on the 6th Floor of Renton Oty Hall, or can be sent .vI. man at a cost 01 SO.1S/p.ge. " Is It too late to participate In the public process? No. All Interested parties are encouraged to: Request to'be made a partY of record,'provlde written comments; and/or provide testfmony (verbally or In writing) at the Public Hearing (date to be determined). Request for additlonllinfonnatfon please ,contact Rocale nmmons at 425-430-7219 or !!!rr=!lli!!!!!!!!m!!!d~ EXHIBIT 23 • ,Agencies See attached Wayne Potter Renton School District #403 Henley USA, LLC Robert Schauss, Robert Garlciugh Greg & Jenny Swanson, Gayle Millet ., (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY O~ KING ) See Attached ~ Entire Document mailable Upon Request 300'surroundlng property owners Contact Owner Applicant Parties of Record Parties of Record I certify that. I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa McElrea signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be his/her/thelr free and voluntary act file '!Hb: mentioned in the instrument. tary Public In and for the State of Washington Notary. {print): __ --"k-"t""ll ... i4t-:-.... 1..uIlW.=.:'e""-: ... s:. ___ ..... _' ________ _ My appointment expires: U At-Lj "",,~ 07 9 / d.D F=/: Reserve at Tiffany Park . LUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP EXHIBIT 24 template -affldavll of service by maUI"g _TICE OF APPEAL/PRELIMINARY PLAT _RING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 18 at 11:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat Appeals LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Location: SW of Pierce Ave SE and E of end of SE 18th St. Description: Two appeals of the Environmental Review threshold Mitigated - Determination of Non-Significance; for a 97-lot subdivision of a 21.7 acre site located within the R-8 zone. The public hearing for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat will be heard immediately following the appeal hearing. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the City Clerk's Office, Seventh Floor, City Hall, Renton. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: October 31, 2014 Account No. 51067 HEX Publication Notice 13·001572 , Denis Law' : •. Mayor November 10, 2014 . Partiesof Record Vari,ous. .. Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Ch ip"Vincent, Adm inistrator SUBJECT: . Report to the Hearing :Examiner . . The Reserlie atTiffany Park, LUA13-001S;2, ECF, PP .. ' Dear Parties of Record: A,public hearing onThe Reserve at Tiffany Park w'i11 be held on Tuesday, 'November 18, 2014 at' 'i1:00am in the City Couri~iI Chambers of Renton CityHall,located at 1055'S Grady Way. The' ,Staff Report to the Hearing, Exa~iner,' including exhibits and, public· coinm~nt letters, is available: -" Eiectronically on line'at the City of RentonwebsiteJwww:rentonwa.gov} . ," :. . . -.To be vi e:"';ectat the City Cle;k's office on the '7'h Floor at Re~ton City Hall,'1055 5 Grady' Way, between 8 am. ar)d'4 pm. Ask for the project file by.the project number LUA14-. -', . . . 001572. _ Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost,'for the staff . re'port is $5.00, plus a handling and posta'ge cost of $2.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). . ' Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.govifyouhave any questions. . Sincerely, Rocale Timmons . Senior Planner, ',' . Renton City Hall ; 1055 South Grady Way .• Renton, Washington 98057 • 'renton;Va,gov . , '.' Denis Law' .. ',Maypr . Novembers, 2014 '.' ' .. CommunitY1Hconomic6evelop;"~nt Dep~rtment .' . ..' , . CE:Chip"Vincent,Adrriinistiator Nancy Rawls. Department ofTrahsportation Renton School District· " , 420 ParkAvenue N .' Renton, WA980SS' ',' , $ubject:': . Tiffany Park Reserve " •. ' LUA13-OO157Z;ECF, PP '., .,. '. -. ..-. . . . . . " The City of Renton's Department of. Community and Economi~ Development (CED) has received an appliCation fora PreliminarYP,Iatlocated atSWofPierce Ave SEaridE.ofendofSE 18th St.' ple~seseetheati:ached Noticeof Application forfurther details, . " .. 'i~Orderto:process this application,qDneeds. ~o. know which' Renton. schools would be ~ti:ended bychfldrenliving in residences at the location indicated a'bolie> Please fill in the appropriate ~chools on the 1is1; b.elow and return this letter to my att~ntion,City of Renton, CEO, PlimningDivision,1055Sotrth'GradyWay; Renton, Washington 98057 orfax to (425) 43(}.73oo, " ..... ". " ,by, December 10, 2013. .' ',. . '. ". . ElementarY sch091:" Tif:fa~y' Park' Elementary. , Middle School: . Nelson Middle School ! •. High SChciOI:~-,,--,-L_i~n_d_b.:..e_r_g_h_._.H_i_g_h_ .. _S_c_h_O_O~l_. ~~ ___ ~-;-.~~ ___ '--:-_ WiUthe schools you haveindic~ted be ilbletohandletheimpact ohhe additionalst~dents ~stimated to come from the proposed develoPlllent? Yes X No . Ba.se,dona 4~.yecirl:>uild. -.out scheduleandt.he number AnyCommen~:~~ __ ~~~~~~~~_~~,--:-~~~~~,~~ __ ~~~~~~. of students generated by s::LmiLu deveiopmentswithinthe, • "-"""Z./ I~' .". ' .... ,.' .' . ," ',," ", • ..... ' .. ,'~'.,",. . . ... , : . ." . Roc e TImmons Associate. Planner .• Enclils~f'; .. . " ", , ... . ... ' ... Renton City Hall ; ,055 South Grady Way • Rent~n, Washingtori98057,rentonw~,go~ .. ' '. :"; , , .' 0 ••• , • ~ ... .. '. ". , • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT • M E M 0 RAN 0 U M DATE: November 10, 2014 ·TO: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager ~ Traffic Concurrency Test -Tiffany Park Reserve The applicant is requesting SEPII-Environmental Review and Preliminary approval for a 97 lot subdivision. The project site area is 21.66 acres and is in primarily R-8 and some R-4 zoning classifications. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th Street and is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and the Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The proposed access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. The applicant is proposing to extend these road stubs into the site in order to provide public access and circulation with internal residential access streets to each lot. The proposed redevelopment would generate approximately 1030 daily trips. During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 103 net new peak hour PM trips. The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows: Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes Within allowed growth levels Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project Yes , . Traffic Concurrency Test .Passes .' • Transportation concurrenc.t Page 2 of 3 November 10, 2014 Evaluation of Test Criteria • Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 95,795 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 84 additional trips from this project. A resulting 94,765 trips are remaining. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit for each new single family residence. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to final occupancy. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The. specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.0, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be canducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to opproval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and . development project described in the application and development permit. 2 Transportation concurren.st Page 3 of 3 November 10, 2014 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project Joils the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to apprave the accomponying development activity permit opplicotion. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 ofthe Comprehensive Plan states the following: Bosed upon the test oj the citywide Transportotion Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment oj 0 Transportation Mitigotion Fee, ond an application oj site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 • November 4, 2014 Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 City of Seattle Seattle Public Utilities RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park -City Proj~ct No. LUA 13-00 11572 Dear Ms. Timmons As you aware, the Henley USA, LLC subdivision project known as The Reserve at Tiffany Park requires road access via an extension of 124th Place SE crossing the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way, and two water main extension crossings, one crossing the Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way, and the other crossing the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way. Henley USA, LLC has made application for these water main crossings. The purpose of this letter is to describe to the City of Renton the timing and process for these three approvals by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) and the City of Seattle. For all utility crossings, including the water mains, SPU will grant only a permit to the utility company or governmental entity that is responsible for the underground infrastructure. This permit approval remains subject to approval of the Design Plans, and a final agreement on the permit terms. For the road extension, pursuant to the Seattle City Charter, an easement must be granted by the Seattle City Council. That is a time-consuming process and will take more than several months. The road easement must be granted to the City of Renton for a public road. The City of Seattle will grant a public road easement to the City of Renton only if the Tiffany Park development is approved. The road easement is subject to SPU agreeing to final terms and then SPU will provide and support a recommendation to the Seattle City Council that the road easement be granted. A version of the road easement document that is acceptable to the City of Seattle was forwarded the City of Renton at the end of May 2014. The Seattle Public Utilities staff will work on the road easement and crossing permits only after receiving a letter from the City of Renton confirming that the Tiffany Park dcvelopment will be approved and the water main extensions will be built. If you have additional questions or concerns please contact Bob Gambill, Sr. Real Property Agent at bob.gambill@seattle.gov or 206-684-5969. Si~2t~ 1:0= Director, Facilities and Real Property Services Ray Hoffman, Director Seattle Public Utilities 700 5" Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 RECEIVED NOV 0 7 2014 CITY Of ~l::r\\TON PLANNING DIVISION Tel (206) 684-5851 Fax (206) 684-4631 TDD (206) 233-7241 ray hQffman@seattiegoy http,'/fwwwseattlegov/util [, -,,.,~,;~. (al~ £!fi~~?c~ti~:attle • 700 5th Avenue Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle WA 98124-4018 Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park City Project No. LUA 13-00 11572 .. "t--¢;~ . :0':> ~~?,~~1~'.; ~ (I. '?" .4,9iiI.&1fF A ,~ :l ,,-PITNEY 8O'NE5 02 1R $ 00.48° 0006561573 NOV052014 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 98124 ',;~;.fj--:" . S;EI(:)5?~:::v.:3'? 11111)' I II 'l'j,II1 11'I hl'lIl'li 11,,1, J I JI. 'lll,IIIJ].111 hli .Ii" : .. Denis Law Mayor • Community & Economic pevelopm'imt Department , C.E.-Chip·Vlncent; Administrator ' October 24, 2014' , SUBJECT: Appeal ofTiffa'nyPark pp'Envlr~nmimtal Detetmination datedSepte""ber :22,Z014 .- File Number: LUA13.oOo157Z To Parihis of Record: Pursuant to TItle, IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of ',Ordinances, ,two written appeais of the , ,Environmental'R,eview Coriunittee's'Mitigated Determination ,of Non-Significance ,for ,the Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat have been filed with the City Clerk. ' , Appea Is Filed By: 1. TIffany Park Woods Advocacy Group '2. caimcross & Hempelmann on behalf of Henley USA, LLC , nie filed app~'als are available:' l .. Upon,request,electronlcally via email; " , 2. To be viewed at"theCityOerk's office ori:the7t1i ,floor qtRenton City Hall: 1055 South Grady Way, between B,am and 4pm. Ask forthe project file by the projectntimber LUA13-D01572; or, ' 3. Via mail for a' copying charge 'of $0.15 per page'plus a handling and postage cost of Sfoo (this cost is subject to change if dOclimentsare 'added)., An appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton'HEiaringExaminer iii the Council Chambers on the seventh Hoorof Renton City Hall;'1055 South Grady Way, Rento'n, Washington, on November 18, Z014 at''1:1.:oo a:m. to' consider the both appeal petitions. The' parties in iippe~1 hearings 'shan be ",the City, the , applicant, 'and the 'appellant(s)i' if ,differenUrom the applicant oi-the City. No oiher persons'shall be allowed to,testify duririgthe aopeal hearing unless serving asa witness to one of the parties. " '. The public ~earingfor the TIffany' Park,Prelilrilnaiy Plat will be,heardimmeillately following the appeal hearirig;AII interested 'persons are invited to be present at the, Public' Hearing to express their , opinions, If you have any questions, please contact meat (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, ' -<-f?~~ R~c)e TImmon; ": " SeriiorPlanner Renton City Hall " , OSS South Grady Way. Renton. Washington 98057 i rentonw..gov - --------------------- And,eas Benson 12633 SE 158th St Renton. WA 980S8 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Karen Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 3901S 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maxwel LiRon 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 Linda Shink 12910 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 980S5 Renton. WA 98058·4744 Emma Gutierrez 1802 Kirkland Ave SE Renton. WA 980S8 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Pauline Colsrud 12606 SE 1S8th St Renton. WA 980S8 Lynn Family 12904 SE 160th St Renton. WA 980S8 James & Mary 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 BOBBY SENGVILAY 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98057 RYan & Jennifer Spencer 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Gary Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Colleen Bowman 2600 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 980S8 Kipepeo Brown 172S Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98055 L.R. Riddle 12620 SE 1S8th St Renton. WA 98058 Helen Pacher 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St. 100 Bellevue. WA 98032 John Knutson Renton School District 300 SW 7th St Renton. WA 980S7 Barbara YarrinRton Henley USA 11100 Main St. Ste. 100 Bellevue. WA 98058 Marie Antoinette Gallardo 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 980S8 Gayle 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Tracey Compton 19426 68th AYe S Kent. WA 98032 Anthony & MarRaret Dean 16917 114th Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Art l1ahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 t\i~ Warren & Nancv McPherson 3213 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Heidi Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton. WA 98056 Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY l JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON. WA 98058 Renata Santos 181S lake Youngs Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Silvestre Cesar 2S24 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300SW 7TH ST RENTON. WA 98055 Dewavne Klinger 2201 Maple Valley Hwy, #86 Renton. WA 98057 Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Jav Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Wavne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave S Kent. WA 98032 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton. WA 980S8 YVONNE BURGESS 15629 129TH Ct SE RENTON. WA 98058 Michael Melanson 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ben & Rose Depusav 3208 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Adele & Ed Harvev 3226 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ed Baker 3209 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Erik Fisher 12364 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 Marina Higgins 1401 Olvmpia Ave SE Renton. WA 980S8 Cvnthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Maraea Albinia 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Beth Asher 436 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98057-6022 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 EDMONDS Way SE RENTON, WA 98058-4613 Kyleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Robert & Cynthia Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Gurmit Gill 19314 138th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 lIahe 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE Renton, WA 98058 Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way S Renton, WA 980S8 Lynn Desmarais 15632 lS9th Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Donna Thorkildson 2621 SE 16th St Renton, WA 98058 Pat Velotta 1708 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 ----------------------- Ca I Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 James Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Rachael Mandy 1402 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 ; i James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 980S8 Phil & Tammv Schaefer 3301 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Presley Richardson 3113 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Iiiliiil\lil.llIll1llli11llill!i!1li$lIlllllmlllll!1l-••• "!U!lllllllii\\llll1lll •••• ;IlllllIID!lmlml.1 _--.... , Imogene Graves DAVID & RENATE BEEDON 1808 Edmonds Way SE 1725 PIERCE Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058-4747 Vicki Hou 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Bob & Suzanne Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Dennis Anderson PO Box S8338 Renton, WA 98058 LARRY GORG 1800 LAKE YOUNGS Way SE RENTON, WA 98058-3812 Eddie Rivera 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Belinda Mathers 2806 SE 16th St Renton, WA 98058 Dennis McClaughlin 1633 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St renton, WA 98058 RachaelBell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton, WA 98058 Laura Kilgore 1825 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 980S8 -------------------- 1---- ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 ALAINE IKUTA 1709 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON, WA 98058-4747 Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Daniel Goldman 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 1I1·~~1 Sarah Brendehl 2S09 SE 16th St Renton, WA 98058 Greg & Jennv Swanson 1819 Ferndale Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Anita & Patty Phillips 1517 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Laura Silbernagel Clint Maurer 260S Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 _1IIllf-IW __ Sheryl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-3809 Rav Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Delbert Sharp 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Mike Harwood 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98055 kKarsten Sathre 1706 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Lisa CabalQuinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH Ct RENTON, WA 98058-4754 Diane Tavlor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98059 ! Frances Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Jan & Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 "l-CAIRNCROSS&HEMPElMANt! 524 2nd Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 www.cairncross_com October 10, 2014 • ATTORNEVSATlAW office 206 587 0700 fall 206 587 noe VIA HANO OELIVERY Renton City Clerk's Office Bonnie Walton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, W A 98057 CITY OF RENTON. OCT 10201. P- i .... At..t1. RECEIVED ~ ( •. CITVCLERK'SOFFICE . C H& VI" alx.-~\ tc~(iP Re: Appeal of Determination of Nonsignificance -Mitigated for The Reserve at Tiffany Park (Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP CAR) Oear Ms. Walton: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the applicant for preliminary plat approval of "The Reserve at Tiffany Park," City of Renton project number LUAI3-001572, ECF, PP CAR (the "Plat"). Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code sections 4-9-070.R and 4-8-11 O.E, Henley files this appeal of the City's Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated, published on September 26,2014 ("MONS"). A copy of the MONS and the $250.00 filing fee are enclosed. Standing Henley is the applicant for approval of the Plat and, therefore, has standing to bring this appeal pursuant to RMC 4-8-IIO.E.3. Henley is aggrieved and adversely affected by the City'S MONS decision because the mitigation conditions included in the decision impose unlawful obligations on Henley, which restrict Henley's ability to develop the Plat. Errors of Fact or Law in the Record Henley's appeal is focused on Conditions 1,3 and 6 of the City'S MONS. The Hearing Examiner should reverse Conditions 1,3 and 6 of the MONS or, in the alternative, modify them as described below. (02658621.DOCX;9 I nrogers@cafrncroufOnt direct: (206) 254·4417 rol.fen@caimcross,com direct: (206) 254·U18 Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10,2014 Page 2 • A. Condition #1. • As currently drafted, Condition I requires that earthwork "shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012." The geotechnical recommendations in the 2012 report lack the specificity.and detail that will be coniained in the geotechnical report Henley's geotechnical consultant will prepare prior to construction. Consequently, Henley requests that the Hearing Examiner modify Condition I to state: "All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 29,2012. or consistent with the recommendations of the final geotechnical report submitted before construction." (Revisions underlined) B. Condition #3. RMC 4-4-130 at subsections H and C state that 30% of significant trees shall be retained in residential developments but that dead, diseased, or dangerous trees, and trees located within proposed rights-of-way can be removed without a permit, and that trees located within critical areas and their associated buffers are not counted toward the City'S 30% requirement. MONS Condition 3 requires the applicant to "retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased; or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers." Thus, Condition 3 simply restates the existing requirements in RMC 4-4-130.H and .C. RMC 4-9-070.M.3 requires the City to consider "whether other local, State, or Federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts" and the City's ability to attach conditions to a proposal under its SEPA authority is limited to those "conditions [that] are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse environmental impacts." (Emphasis added). Additionally, in RMC 4-9-070.M, the City adopted the requirements ofW AC 197-11-660(1 )(g), which states that if the City'S "developmentregtilations .... provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action ... , the GMA county/city shall not impose additional mitigation under [SEPAl" Here, RMC 4-4-130.H and C adequately mitigate the asserted environmental impacts related to the "plants" element of the environment. By merely restating the requirements ofRMC 4-4-130.H and C, Condition 3 is redundant and fails to comply with RMC 4-9- 070.M.3 and WAC 197-11-660(1 )(g). The Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition 3 or, in the alternative, the Examiner should modify Condition 3 to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated August 27, 2014, which the City has confirmed demonstrates "compliance with the 30% tree retention requirement." See Draft Environme~tal Review Committee Report, dated September 22, 2014 ("ERC Report") at pg. 14. (0265862I.DOCX:9 ) Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10,2014 Page 3 • • Condition 3 should be modified to state: "The applicant shall be required to comply with the approved Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated August 27, 2014." C. Condition #6. The State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C ("SEPA"), the Renton Municipal Code, and state and federal law limit when and to what extent the City can attach mitigation conditions to a project without the applicant's consent. Among other limitations, in order for such conditions to be valid, they must be reasonable, and they must be necessary to mitigate environmental impacts that are significant. Conditions that are not necessary, not reasonable, or that do not mitigate significant impacts are unlawful. Additionally, any mitigation condition imposed must have a nexus (i.e., it must relate to impacts resulting from the proposed action) and it must be roughly proportional to the impacts. The City'S errors and violations ofthese and other specific standards include the following: I. The City erred because it has failed to show that the aesthetic impacts resulting from the Plat are significant. RMC 4-.9-070.B states that the "City of Renton possesses the authority to deny or condition actions in order to mitigate or prevent probable significant adverse environmental impacts." (Emphasis added). The City asserts that Condition 6 is intended to mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from the Plat, but the City has failed to show that the aesthetic impacts will be significant given the current butTers provided by the 60 feet wide Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-Way to the northeast, the 100 feet wide Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-Way to the South, substantial vegetated tracts to the west and north, and the 10-foot vegetated butTers that are provided along the northeast portion of the Plat. The City erred by failing to show that the impacts, with these planned butTers and tracts already in place, will be significant, requiring the imposition of additional butTers. By not showing that the impacts will be significant, as required by the City'S SEPA policies, the City erred by imposing mitigation conditions, including specifically by imposing Condition 6. 2. The City erred by relying on the City'S landscaping standards in RMC 4-4-070 as justification for imposing Condition 6. In the ERC Report, the City states that the "landscaping requirements (RMC 4-4-070) are intended to, among other things, address: needs for an increase in privacy and protection from visual or physical intrusion; the maintenance and protection of property values; and generally the enhancement of the overall image and appearance of the City and quality oflife for its citizens," but "a specific standard for small lot single family development abutting less intense (larger lot) single family development is not explicit in the code." In other words, the Code contains no requirement for installing landscape butTers between single family lots developed at ditTerent intensities, much less the same intensity as is (0265862 LDOCX;9 ) • • Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 4 the case here. Yet, now the City is trying to require such a buffer through its SEPA substantive authority. In fact, not only does the Code contain no such buffer requirements, but the Code specifically exempts from its buffer requirements the areas in the Plat where the City now is attempting to impose them. Condition 6 states that a minimum "IS-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided." The landscaping standards ofRMC 4-4-070 expressly do not apply to "yards not abutting a public street or private street or shared driveway." RMC 4-4-070.C.2.b. The perimeter portions of the Plat that would be subject to Condition 6 do not abut (i.e., share a common boundary with) a public or private street or shared driveway. Consequently, the City is attempting to impose the landscaping requirements on the Plat in areas that are expressly exempt from those requirements under the City's Code, as provided in RMC 4-4-070.C.2.b. Even if the Plat's perimeter areas were not exempt from the RMC 4-4-070 landscaping requirements, the requirements in RMC 4-4-070 for visual barriers between less intensive zones and uses still would not apply because: a. The landscape requirements for visual barriers between less intensive zones applies only (i) when nonresidential development abuts a residential zone, (ii) when a residential multifamily zone or use abuts a less intense residential zone, (iii) when a commercial zone or use abuts a residential zone, or (iv) when an industrial zoned lot or use abuts a residential or commercial zone. See RMC 4-4-070.F.4. Consequently, the landscape requirements do not apply when the two sites are both in single-family residential zones, as they are in this case. b. Even if there was a requirement for a landscape buffer between two differently zoned residential parcels, the zoning for the Plat and the neighboring properties is the same, so there is no need to require a buffer between two residential zones with the same zoning designation. c. The buffer requirements in RMC 4-4-070.F.4 apply to properties that share a common'property line with the adjacent, differently zoned or used properties. But none of the nearby residential properties shares a common property line with the proposed lots in the Plat. Some residential properties to the west do share a common property line with certain tracts (not lots) within the Plat, but those portions of the Plat (Tracts A, B, L, and M) already contain substantial vegetation at average depths much greater than the IS-foot buffer the City attempts to impose through .Condition 6. Consequently, in the areas where a common property line with adjacent neighbors does exist, the City lacks a reasonable rationale for imposing the additional buffer. . {0265862I.DOCX;9 } r-----------------------~-------------------------- • • Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 5 d. Even if the visual barrier language from RMC 4-4-070.F applied, those requirements are for 10-foot and IS-foot barriers, not a "minimum" IS-foot buffer as stated in Condition 6. The City lacks authority to impose the "minimum" IS-foot buffer under RMC 4-4- . 070, and, even if it had some authority, it is an arbitrary and capricious decision to require such a large buffer in this case. A 10-foot buffer already is planned for the majority of the perimeter of the Plat, as well as even deeper buffers where vegetated tracts are located. In addition to those planned buffers, the 60-foot buffer provided by the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-Way to the northeast and the 100-foot buffer provided by the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-Way to the South provide an even greater buffer between the Plat and the adjacent residential properties than is typical for residential developments in the area .. The city's attempt to use its SEPA authority to impose an additional IS-foot buffer lacks a reasonable basis in its Code and in the facts. 3. The City erred because Condition 6 is not reasonable. The City'S SEPA substantive authority is contained in RMC 4-9-070.M. RMC 4-9-070.M.3.c states that the "City may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as [t]he mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished." (Emphasis added). Contrary to these requirements, Condition 6 is not reasonable for several reasons, including but not limited to: a. As mentioned above in paragraph 2, the landscaping buffer standards do not apply here. b. Even if the landscape standards did apply, the City's stated goal of 50 percent sight obscuring landscaping or landscape plus fencing can be achieved through far less burdensome means. See enclosed letter from Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated October 7, 2014 (describing how the buffers previously planned for the Plat will meet the City'S desired sight-obscuring standard). A condition is not reasonable if it is far more burdensome and restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired mitigation. c. There is a minimum I O-foot buffer/or large vegetated areas already planned for the majority of the perimeter of the Plat. In fact, all ofthe proposed lots that directly abut adjacent property lines have some sort of buffer. In addition to those planned buffers, the 60-foot buffer provided by the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-Way to the northeast and the 100-foot buffer provided by the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-Way to the South provide an even greater buffer between the Plat and the adjacent residential properties than is typical for residential developments in the area. So, even if some impact could be shown, the City'S request for additional buffers is far out of proportion to, and unreasonable in light of, the environmental impacts, if any. {026S862I.DOCX;9 I • • Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10,2014 Page 6 d. The ERC Report confinns that transplanted trees from within the plat will satisfY the City's 30% tree retention requirement. Henley proposes to use transplanted trees to enhance the planned 10-foot 1Juffer areas in order to create the visual buffer desired by the City. Condition 6, however, appears to require the planting of new trees, which the City does not allow to count toward the 30% mitigation requirement. Because the City appears to be requiring an unnecessary buffer width and IJnnecessary new tree plantings in addition to the 30% of existing trees that Henley aiready'pians to retain, the City's imposition of Condition 6 is excessive and not reasonable in light of the aesthetic impacts of the Plat. e. Condition 6 is not reasonable because it is based upon the false premise that the Plat is developed at a greater intensity than the surrounding properties. The CitY asserts that Condition 6 is required to mitigate the "aesthetic impacts of the proposed development on less intense neighboring properties." The City's use of the word "intense" could mean that the Plat is developed at a greater density (i.e., number of dwelling units per acre of platted land) than are the neighboring properties, or it could mean that the lot sizes within the Plat are smaller than the lots on the neighboring properties. The City's imposition of Condition 6 is not supported by either of these two meanings of the word "intense." With respect to density, the Plat is being developed under R-8 zoning, but will have a developed density of no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. This developed density is far below the allowed density for the entire area. If the City is requiring a IS-foot sight-obscuring landscape buffer in order to mitigate the aesthetic impacts on less intense properties, then the Plat should not be required to contain a buffer because it has a developed density that is substantially less than that allowed. With respect to lot size, if the City's concern is that the lot sizes in the Plat are small in comparison to the neighboring lots, then Condition 6 also does not resolve the City's concern becaus~ the IS-foot buffer would cause the developer to take that area out of the back of the lots, thereby creating smaller lots. If the City'S aesthetic concerns are with small lot development, then imposing Condition 6 does not alleviate that impact, it worsens it by forcing the developer to create even smaller lots. For these reasons, Condition '6 is not reasonable in light of its asserted basis, intended purpose and effect. 4. The City erred because Condition 6 is not necessary to mitigate the specific probable adverse environmental impacts identified in the MONS. The City'S SEPA substantive authority defines the limits of the City'S authority to impose mitigation cO!Jditions without the applicant's consent. The City's SEPA substantive authority is contained in RMC 4-9-070.M. RMC 4-9-070.M.3.a states that the "City may attach conditions to a pennit or approval for a proposal so long as [s]uch conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable {026S862I.DOCX;9 I • Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 7 adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to [RMC 4-9- 070]." (Emphasis added). The City has stated that Condition 6 is necessary to meet the goal stated in the City's landscape standards (RMC 4-4-070) of achieving a 50 percent sight-obscuring landscaping or landscape plus fencing standard. As discussed above, these landscape standards do not apply to the Plat. Additionally, Condition 6 is not necessary to achieve the City's desired mitigation; Instead, the City's 50 percent sight-obscuring standard can be achieved through alternative and less burdensome means. See enclosed letter from Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated October 7, 2014 (describing how the buffers previously planned for the Plat are sufficient to meet the City'S desired sight-obscuring standard). Condition 6 also is not necessary because the property already includes buffers between the Plat and adjacent single-family lots. Those buffers include the 6O-foot buffer provided by the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-Way to the northeast, the 100-foot buffer provided by the Cedar River Pipeline Right- of-Way to the South, and deep buffers provided by vegetated tracts to the west and north. Because the City'S goal can be met through use of buffers that will not further restrict the development of the Plat, Condition 6 is not necessary to mitigate the identified impact and it should be reversed. 5. The City erred because the applicant has already provided a 10-foot buffer and other tracts above and beyond what is required in the City'S applicable development regulations which provide adequate mitigation for the purported environmental impacts. 6. The City erred because Condition 6 is an unlawful exaction, which violates the nexus and rough proportionality requirements of state and federal law. 7. Condition 6 violates the Growth Management Act, Ch. 36.70A RCW and Local Project Review Act, Ch. 36.70B RCW because the City'S regulations govern landscape buffer requirements and explicitly exempt from those regulations the areas on which the City now seeks to impose buffer requirements through SEPA conditions. 'Additional errors may J?e discovered during the appeal process via testimony and evidence provided by the City. However, the above list summarizes the primary issues involved in this matter. Request for Relief For the reasons described above and to be described at or prior to the hearing on this matter, the Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition I, or, iri the alternative, the Examiner should modify Condition I to state: "All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 29,2012, or consistent with the recommendations of the finid geotechnical report submitted before construction." {026S862LDOCX;9 } • Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 I· Page 8 • The Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition 3 or, in the alternative, the Examiner should modifY Condition 3 to state: "The applicant shall be required to comply with the approved Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, compieted by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated August 27, 2014." Finally, the Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition 6. The remainder of the MDNS should be affirmed. Procedural Issues Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 0.E.7, other than the appellants, the City, and Henley, "No other persons shall be allowed to testifY unless serving as a witness to one oft!1e parties." For the sake of efficiency, testimony and comments from non-appellants should not be allowed during the hearing. Henley requests that the hearing follow the format provided in RMC 4-8-11 0.E.9 and be "organized so that testimony and other evidence can be presented efficiently." Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 O.C.4 and the City'S fee schedule, a check in the amount of$250.00 is enclosed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let us know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, IA~b-4- ~andall P. Isen NBR:RPO:kgb Enclosures: MDNS, Appeal Fee, letter from Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (0265862I.DOCX;9 ) --~~~~~'~'~"'~'----~-777~~'~,~~~--~, -:-;-'.. ,--~--, ,-. :--- ,:. . ','" , ' , .' .... . ' .. ' ; ..... . , ' :., . DenlsLaw :. ,.: ;:. "., ': , City:of. ' ...... ,. : .". '. ' .' ,"'. ': .. '," .... , ...... ::.,' · .......•.. JJ '" ,~e' ..... '., '" Sl!pt~l)'1ber25, 20l,4: :,' ,:'., ·'Cominu~ltY&Econcim·lc:[)evelopmeiltDepartm';nt· ,,' ' ~ .' . . ',,:'. ' " '. . .," '. : ,CE.·Ch,lp·vinee.nt,'Admlnlstrator '. ,,' " , ': . Wa~hl;,gtori sta~~ ,': ,,' "'. . , '. , ' '. ' ". ' ',' :' , ,,',Oepartn'lentof,Ec.blog);, ," " ",' ' , , " . : ': 'Envlrcm'mentai ReVfe1N Sectl~n : '. . '.' ", '. ' • . . ·.PO:B9.x 4770;1· ,,' ',' ,.: ,<,'. .. ' ," ': 0:-<" .. 'Olvmpla~WA,98'S04+7703::' ':," c."""."'.,., . • . : .;., ", ',-, -' -' .... '.' ,.' " ,"! . .' . " '. ' . ," ': . ~. :" . :' . -:' .. ':'" '. ',suble~t:;':E~~IRO~Mii~A'~(~~M)THR~';iDDET~~~I~ATio~ , '. " '. , ,'..:" : .'. "',,, '. ..' . :.. .' . . .. ,. ." . '" " . " " "Tr~~srril~ed 'h~re~l~h Is ~. copy ~f ~he i:n.j;:o~mental Determin~t1o,~ forlhe fan~w;~~ ".' .":. .... " '. . ":'.:: pr'oj~ct revlewed,bY.tlle Envirollm'ental Revfe~ cOinmltteE1 (ERC) on September i~; .. ' "."","", ~ . ' , ' ";' ""', .. 2Q1~:,,:: ..... ": ": . ".:', '. . . .<:': ~ ~.,,":" ',,; "'.' .' "':. .' .. : . ','. -.. .' ". : ~. . . .' . "" . _ . .'.. . . . ",: , : "', :" :' SEI'A PETERMINATlON; ; 'D~~i!rmi'''llflon of Ntln-slgnmcance Mi~ii,.tl!d(DNSMi: , , , . .' . ,. ; PROJEcT NAME; .': . 'The'R~serv~'at 'nfflin~ pa~k·. '..' ',' '" . . ' " "P~(:uEq~UMBER:"": 'i': L~A13~o~15;2; ~CF,PP'~IJ: :,' , , ',' :.: ............... .': .... : .... .-: ... ::'~:' 1-:' .; .................. : ....... :.: .... ,,: :', . :,':'_ M:· ... ··::·.·.· 'Appeals of th'e' enVironmental determination' mu~ be'flled In Wrltlng.oh orbefore'S:OO, , '. p.n{ an 'OCtober 10; 2014, togeth~r wlfht,he:r'\lqulied fe~ with: Hearing ~amlrie~; :cltV:·... '" " " '" " -;', .-" • "::-.,' -. • _. ',' : ", _. I". '.. • i' ,.' '.. ., '. -:. • ' • '.' '." •• ', ': ,of Renton, 1055 Sou.th Grady.IN,ay;·Rento,o, WA!;I8057; Appeals to.the .Examlner are .'.,,, . " .', /' gover~ed by RMe ~8,liO:ah\i'lntorinatlon :regarding the:ap'peal pracess.m~y be '.,' .' ()btairie~' ffori:lthe CitY Clerl<s,Office;'(425) 43Q-651o. .,:: :';-:.', " , ...... '" .' ' ' . .' , " ".",; : 'PI~a'se 'r~fe;t~ t~'e e~~I~~~d' NotlC~ of~ri~iron~~n~~i Det~;~;na;IC;~ f~~ :coil1pl~te: .~ '; : '. . ... , ',. . "detaiis:lf yo~havEi·qiilisticios; pl~ase~all nie,ai(425r4io.72~.9. " .,' , " .:., ': ." .,·~,')~r~~~~.~~~~;:I1~~e~tai~e~;~~:ci9.~~I~tee,::·· ",,, . '" , .' ' '. " """..': :.::~~{;;.~ ··d .....•.•.• '" " '. : .. . . ~.. . ", " ".,.:;·~:C~i~'11n1n10n:/',:::'·\,·<·,·::,·,·., : ::,:~'., .... (," · : ,:.;.;. ... .: ,~en.lo(P.lan.n~r ' .. . ~ ;:. . i,": ':'.-,' '" " , . , , , " ..... .. . , ": .. " .. , ; '" " : . " . ':', : . ", . .. ," ~~:' ':'~ng'toun~wast~'Water~Trea~~nt Q~'~~\. . : . '.: .: . .' i • ~~~in'p~o6~'I'~S~Oi, NV"'~~gli::n '-: . :,' , .' . ".: :. BoYd PowerS, ~paitment'ofNatur~1 Resources " . ',LarrY.FiSher, WOFW :. · ..... ': " ':'lCare~ Wai.ter, Fishenes. Mutkle$hQot Indla,i'f(lbe ':: ,,,.': OuwambhTrUlill OfI!~e ...... .. ' .,' , Mellss.:Calvert, Muckleshoot cultUral Resources p,rogiam ... ,.' .. US Army Corp, of Engineers , • " ':GretcheoKilehl~r,:oinceofArCha~olcisY&Hlstorlc'Prestlr\liltlon '"'' '.' " . " . \.' : ... '.,.-:; .... :. ~ .,-.,,-.... -, .. :''':':. ':,. "', -, ," ":,: ' ... .... . .: " ": .... ,,': . · ,,' .::.:. :." . ~ " .;.' . . ..''; '.'. . :';::',". . .... . .: ,:.' '. ',' .; : .. ':-. .... ' , . .. . '" ~-~". -',' .'. ... :,' .' .... ' ,-" :' ." " ",",".", '. , 'RentohOtyHaIl • 10SSSoutliGradyWay'. Renton,Washlngion980S7 ;'rentoilYfa.gav· ". .,'"'. ' '." -, ,':- " .. "' '. .. ' . ',' . : ',:",' .', : . ,', . -., .. '., .' .~ " , " . . ..... . .' ~ . ,-'. . '., . .: .' " .:' f ------"_'0'--', . ~ -.,~-... ----. --' •. t -'. "-"'"~~~~~""-':, .'.-~:..... ... ;;'.~.+. ... ~.----.......... ~" .... -' -, -' -.':;:~~":"" ~ .. ~, ~,.,:.-................ '-;: .. ~ .. ,~ -~~-~, ..... :,~~~ ...... ~~~., .... ; ... :. ,-~ ..... :, .'."-........ .,,~ ..... ~ .......... ~, ...... ~ .. , ... , '_. = .... ~: ... ~.-.-.~=.~." .... ~: I· • • , I , OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-MI • POSTED TO'NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECf NAME: The Reserve atTlffany Park PROJECT NUMBER, LUA13·001S'i, ECF, PP, CAR LOCAnON: SE 18th $t lind 124· PI OESCRJPTION: THE APPUCANT HAS SUDMrTTED A PROPOSAL REQUESTING SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REvIEW AND _ PREUM1NARY PLAT MPROVAL fOR A ,.,:.tOT SUBDIVISION (H LOTS WITH A '0" TREf RETENT10N ALTERNATIVE PlAN), THE 2LA ACRE SITE IS LOCATED WITHiN: THE RESIDENTW.-8·DWEWNG UNITS PER ACR! IR-8) ZONING CLASSIFICAnON. A SMALL PORTION OF THE sm: lOCATED WrfHfN ·THE R ... ZONING ClASSlFIi:AnON. ALL PROPOSED LOTS wOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-I tONING CWSIFICAnoN. 'THE SUWEcr PROPERlY lS LOCATED AT THE DEAD tNO OF sf: 18TH $T BORDERED BY THE aDAR RIVER PIPELINE ALONG THE'SOUTHON PROPERTY UN! AND MERCER ISLAND PIPEUNE AlONG THE EASTERN PROPEKJ'Y UH!. ntf 96 LOTS WOULD R£$ULT IN A DENsrtV NO MORETHAN 5.70 DWEWNQ UHm PER ACRE. lOT SIZES WOULD RANG! fROM .. ,soo SQUAll! IEET TO B.Csa SctUAR! FUT wmt AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE O' 1.59' SQUAA£ FEn. IN ADOmON TO THE 9119&) LOTS, 1311tACTS AIlE PROPOSED FOR SENSmvE AREAS, TREE RETornON, STORM DRAINAGE, ACC£SS, PEDlSTRIAN CONNECTIONS, AND OPEN SPAC!: INCLUDING"" (EXlSTtNGJ VEGETATED BUFfER ALONG ntE NORTHERN BOUNoARv 104m IN WIDTH. Atass TO niE SITE WOUlD BE GAINED FROM SEta'" ST WITH SttONDARY ACCESS EXmIDED fROM nAn! PlACI SEo THE SIT! IS, CURRfNnY VACANT WITH 1,101 SlGHIFlCANT TRED AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO RlTAiN 147 TREES (181 TREES wmt A aoK Tltl RmNnON _ALTtRNAnvt PlAN). THI APPUCANT HAS SU8M1TTED: A WET1.AND REPORT, D~AGE_ 'REPORT/TRAFftC IMPACT ANALYSIS" G£O'nCHNICAL ENGJNEERING snl0Y, ARBORIST REPORT, HABITAT DATA -REPORT, AND INDEPENDENT SECONDARY STUDIES FOR TRANSPORTAllDN AND Wm.ANDS ARE (HCLUDED WITH THE APPUCAnON. nf! srrr CONTAINS THREE CATEGORY 2 WETlANDS (WmANDS .. ,c, AND" D) ANO TWO CATEGORY. WETLANDS (WETLAND a AND E). THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTINQ It tAmcAI.. ~EA IXEMPTlON FOR THI ~NSlON OF 5E 1 .... Sf nfROUGH P~FmONS Of THE BUfFER ASSOCIATED wmt WETlAND E. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DmRMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIACANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determinatIon must be flied In wrftfn. on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 20'14,' together with the required fee with: Heartnl Exa~lner, CIty of Renton, '10S5 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98051. ,Appeals to the Examiner are :co'yemed by ctty of RMC *110 'a~d InformatIon re8a~dln8 tho 8pp~al p,!tcess,1"!18V be o~talned from the RentOn Oty Clerk's Office, (4%~) 4J0..6510. A PUBLIC HEARING' WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL; 10S5 SOUTH GRADY WAY. RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON OCTOBER 21, 2014 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PREUMINARY PLAT. IF THE 'ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APpEALED. THE APPEAL WIU BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBUC HEARING. [.'-~'.-:~---.'-.'.-'--C;"--",--::'.'.-' , l ".!.~ ... -.' "'~"""'~"l'Y''''''''''' • ;--:""".~;,:,.,._:,._~,_,_,.:-'''''''>H'~' ;~\""""',"\~-:"'~'" .... ~ .... '., .•••.• ~, ....... ~ .• ".! -,., ........... ,: ...... Y.--,',"; " ',_ < -';"'" I" <.~:',~.X' .. -...'.·~:-.:;..'.:.,. •. : .•... : .·~.".H-,.,·.-.·"'~;;~~r:,:'~~ ... ~.x;~·: .,' VI 'I •• ~ •.. , •..••. : ... I;, • G' ,'" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPM~NT '1&~~ ~ -----........ ~ ...... ~®Mlk@rm 0 ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) ,PROJECT N~MBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA13-oo1572, ECF, PP, CAR Henley USA LLC - Tiffany P~rk Resel'lle PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted a proposal requesting 5E,PA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision (96 19ts with a 30% tree retention altematlve plan). The 21.66 acre site Is located within the Resldential-S dwelling units per acre (R-S) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4.zonlng classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-S zoning classification. The subject property Is located at the dead end of SE lSth St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southem property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 96 lots ' WOUld. result In a density no more than 5.70 dwelling units per,.acre. lot sizes 'would range from 4,500 square feet to'S,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet: In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retentlon"storm dralnage,~ccess, pedestrian connections, and open space Including an (existing) vegetated buffer along' the northernbouridary lQ,feet in width. Access to the site .would be gained from 5E 18th St with secondary access extended from i24th Place SEc 'The site is currently vacant with " , . ' ' , - -, i" _ \ ,. '--, , , : -- -.- , 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to rl!t~lri 147 'trees (188 trees with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, .ArborlstRep6rt, Habitat Data Report, and 'Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands are Included with the application. The site contains three category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, 0) and two category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant Is requesting a Critical Area Exemption fur the extension of 5E 18th 5t through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PROJECT LOCATION: SE 18th St and 124th 5t LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that It does not have a probable Significant adverse Impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), Conditions were Imposed as mitigation, measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4·9-0700 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 fur fourteen, (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 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-S-110 and more Information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 43D-6510. ' I I ,I ,'\ . ;' ,:,,' 1 ,.-;," • ~c " .j>UBUcA'nONjjAi~iC;::j " ,;'~}+~8~ ~i~;~,~:~~:> " ~ '.",'~, "':'>i,0'" ,.i;',. ,' .. , ·September.,Z6i2014 ,0,.' ',"""" •• , ,.' ... : "; ':,>-":" :(,,: . i" .... j" ">" ;,;,.".,.'''~' , ~;,SEPTEMBER·22.2014 , --" , --<,' ";,' '"., ", '; ;>,', ",:,.<,,; :", .::;' 1 " :; ~.' ,:', ~ ~ " '" f'M,""fj'D,': ~: 112~1tii)2tl;:,t H " '''" r" . "'MarkPeterfcl;,Almlnlstrator . " .. Dllte. Fire &'EtneigencyServlc:es'" f . , ,,' ", " " • ',J'. ;', ,="" ... ;t\7'::'::-'-~"'7-:';',,-+;~~';:':;:'7~"+" ""'-':-'" .~.7 ~+,-.. , '--,-' 'qkJ 1'l:~~;~Jf11\,tJ~1Mrr-: TenyHlgashlyai\ia, MinllllstratC1r .' , .~,E. ·<:hIP~ Vlncent,Ad~inifthltor ". ;CommOnity Se"'ice~D~pilltinent . 'tate' "Deflartmentof Commumty & .' . ....,. " . . ..... ;;....' . Economlc.Develdpment' . . . , r _ " .,,' , ., ' .. . ' ,",' , ~ . ,'.' ,~ '. . ,'" ;.: . t' ",:,[ ,,,. . ..,'- .... ' (---.:'"~.--"~--" -.-~ _.--~. ~'~~--"-';";"""" '~\"'~~ '.', r , .. ".,.".-.. ".,,,-,,.,,,,,,,.,.,,,, .. """",,,. .. nnw .:. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMICDEVELOPMEIiiT Q -------1[®mr1t(O)ml e , . -" '-, -, ' _. ," -\ . DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) . MiTIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES .. PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: . LUA13-001572, Ed:, PP, CAR Henl!!y USA. LLC The Reserve at Tiffany Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION: . The. applicant hassubmltted a proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision (96 lots with a 30% tree retention alter,..ative plan). The 21,66 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) lOlling classification. A small portion' of the site located within the R-4 loni'ng classifjcation;:Allproposed lots would be .Iocated within the R-8 zoning classifi~ation . . Thesubject .property is lo~ated' at the dead end of sf: 18th St bordered by the C(ldaf River Pipeline along the:southern property line and Mercer.lsland Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 96 lots would result in a density no more than 5;70 dwelling units per acre. i6t sizes would range froin 4;500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot siz~ of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space Including an' (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary lo-feet In width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees (188 trees. with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland· Report,Draillage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborlst Report,' Habitat Data Report,' and Independent Secondary StiJdles for Transportation and Wetlands are·I~(:h!d.ed· with the application. The ,slte,~ontalns three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C,and, 0) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant Is requesting a Critical Mea Exemption for the extension 'of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated ~ith Wetland E. . . PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: SE 18th St and 124th Place The City of Renton. Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division ',--" .. -------. _.- I \ "'W"""" __ .:" ........ "'~-.. "".,,,' ...... , ........ -""." .. "''''-''''.~:" ..... '= .. ''= .. ~:... ... ".'".'= .•. '.-.... • .. -··-i"····'''·r.-" .......... ' ....... '''~-''-'w.'.' .• " ..... , ................. , ...• , •.... -"., I MI'TIGATiON' MEASURES: .. . 1. All eartllworkpeiforni'e'if, Implemented liy the applicant, shall be co~slstent With the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sclences,lnc" dated September 28, 2012: 2. The 'flnal drainage report shall include a more detailed downstream analysis. Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2:1, a level i downstream analysIS for ~ mile from the project site Is required. The applicantshould note that level 3 flow control could be required as part of the level 2 downstr~am analysis'. A revised final drainage report and associated plans, based on the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Mariuaras amended by the City of Renton, Is required to be submitted to the satistaction of the Plan ~eviewer prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall' also" be required to comply With, and' Implement; any . recommended mitigation measures included In the revised Drainage Report. 3. The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusl()ns for those. trees that are considered deac:!, dlseased,or dangerous, trees I()cated within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers. 4. The applicant shall .be required to provide, to the Current Plannl.ng Project Manager, tree retention Inspection/monitoring reports after Initial clearlng,flnal grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. rhe Inspection/monltorlhgreports shall Identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions a~d prescribe mitigation. The appllca~t shall also be required to comply with, and Implement, any recommended mltigatl.on measures Included In the Inspection reports. 5. The applicant shall be required to submit iJ' mitigation p'lan, prepared by a qualified profeSSional, which will address vermin abatement during project grading and site Improvements. The vermin abatement mitigation plan' shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to cohstn,iction perrnlt'lPproval, The applicant shall also be required to comply and implement any recommended mitigation according to an approved plan. G. A minimum is-foot wide partlaliy sight obsciJrlng landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided. The 15-:feet would allow for the offset of Otree pl~htlng,:as opposed to a linear tree line, which would create a more natural buffer in keeping with the existing character of the site. Such landscaping or landscape plus fencing shall be, at minimum, G-feet high at maturity imd at least 50% sight-obscuring. Existing mature trees are located within this 15 foot buffer . should.be maintain and protected during construction unless determined by an Ar.borlst that such tree Is dead, diseased, or dangerous. ERe Mitigation Meosur~j ondAdvlsory Notes Poge 2 of 5 , , . -............... "'~ ..... ~-. ••••• , • '" •• :~ •• .,:"-~.,.;, :,~ ...... ~'I.:.. ............ ~~ ....... ':' ... ~.~ ••• , ~ .,=,~"" .. ,.:-...... _ ~~"'" '''' ................. ~ -" .. ,'.' '!'''':':;=':;_~~-''~'''''' '.\ '.~ '~'::_'.'::; .'.'.'._. '-'-:·",",r-="'"7·-,~.·,·,:.:,: r,.~.,:., ~.'" ' .••. , .:. "~7 '. "' ... '--." ..... :-:':.:,:-:.,::.:.=.:~\.~ .•••..•. ~.; 1.':;-• • " 7; ,9. 10. 11. .','-" The applicant shall install' a STOPslg,; wltli ast~pline in thermoplastic on the southb()iuldapproach.of Monroe Ave SE to'SE'lS'h'Stin order to address the slg~t,dl~ance concetns at this Int~rS!!ctlon prior to Final Plat' approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit Issuance;' ' , The applicant shall ,submit a revised TIA Includlii'gan analYSi~ of the 124th;l'Iace , SEand SE 158th Stlntersectlon sight distance and reco'mmend appropriate mitigation. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction permits. The applicant shall "also be required, to comply,with, ,and Implement,~any recommended mitigation measures'included in,the revised TIA.' , The applicant shall Install directional information slgnage (white letters on green background) at S Pug~t Drive and 116th Ave SE facing west prior to Final Plat approvaL The signs shall read 'tiFFANY PARK" with 'a left arrow and "CAsCADE" with aright arrow. The fil)al design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit Issuance. An additional CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) warning sign with a 15MPH advisory speed 'sh~1I be Installed by the ap~lIcantonthesouthwest directional app'roach to Beat,lm Way SE,' along the north side of SE 16th St (east of Beacon Way SE). The final design Is subject to final construction permit review 'prior to construction permit issuance. ' The applicant shall provide a marked crosswa'ik at the i~tersectlonof SE 18th St anlj lake Youngs Way SE prior to Final Plat approval. The final design Is subject to final ~onstruction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. , ERe MItIg;.ildriMeasures aridAd~liory Notes' . .' -.... -'.' " Page 3 oi 5 r'·--· ---~.--.--::--;---~---"--... -.-. -!. ..,"'.' .. ~ .. , ~. wy,' ",.,.,~""~,:,,,.,~ 'c. ,,,=,,,",., ""'~'i ,. ,,'. w,;·,.=-'. ;,u""«x:f.,',,,.,,, ".'. ',' ,'""'''''.''''',,",''', i"'" " ..... ,', ...... """.'" "",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,., .. , .. ;., ""<,,,,,'..0,,<,,,.,,.,,,,, .,. , , , ADVISORY-NOTES: . Planning' . ..,:. '.' '., ". . " .:. . .•... .' .. .' i. RM~ ~edion 4:4-030.C.2Iimitsh~u(hour~ bet....;~en 8:'30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through . FrldaY~r'essoiherwlse approved ,by the Dev~lopment Services OIvl~lon. 2. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be Indu.dettwith the civil plan submittal. Water . 1. There Is,an existing 8-lnch water main stubbed to the site In SE 20th Court, In SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site Is 10Fated In the 590-water pressure zone and static pressure In the are~hlnges from 65-82 psI. Se~ citywaterdrawings W-0256, W-0508 and W-0469. C<innec:tlon~o the 8"lnch main in SE 19th Court will require crOSSing the City of Seattle , " $-' ",,,,' . " , ,.. ,"'" ' ," plpellne:A permit from Seattle Public UtilitIes will be required. '.' 2. System development fee for waterlsbased on the size ofthe new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for "-I~ch or l-Inch water meter install is $2809.00 .. 3. Fee for·a. %-inch meter drop In by the city Is $ 400.00. Fee for a l-Inch meter drop In by the city Is $ 460.00. 4; Extension of a new 8-lnch water main and new hydrants within the plat 'will be required. it is shown on the plans. 5. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provIde the required. coverage of all lots. Existing hydrants counted as fire protection shall be retrofitted with storz fittings If not already In place.' . 6. Plat shall provide separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the . plat.Thedev~lopment Is subject to applicable water system development charges (SOC) fee and water meter installation fees based on the number and size ofthe meters for domestic, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The current SOC fee for a 1" domestic water meter Is $2,809.00. The SOC fee Is paid prior to Issuance of the construction permit. SanItary Sewer 1. Sewer serVice IS'provided by the City of Renton. There Is an 8-lnch sewer main InSE 18th Street: Extension of an 8-lnch sewer main will be required onslte. It is shown on the plans. 2. System development fee for sewer Is based on the slz~ ofthe newdol1lestlc water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee' for a "-Inch wat~r or ·i-Inch meter install Is $2,033.00. : 3. All piatsshall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lotprl,or to recording of the plat. Surface Water 1. Appropriate Individual lot flow control BMPs will be required tohelpmltigate the new runoff created by this development. Several of the lots alon'g the existing wetlands will discharge roof runoff Into the wetland area~ to maintain wetland hydrology. 2. A geotechnical report, dated September 28,2012 was submitted by Associated Earth Sclence(,hlc. The field st\ldy Includ~d 12 exploration pits on the 21.6 acre site: The'sitels underlain at shallow depth by 10dgemenUlllsedlments. For dralrlClge purposes, thlsmedlun1 dense,rri~ist, fine sand with sUt is ~ot a suitable for Infiltration: . ERCMltlg;,tlon Me~sures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 5 " "" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I I l ,'.: 3. Surface water system development fee Is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to Issuance of the,constructlon ' '" 0 , permit. , 0 , 4. 0 A ,Construction Stormwater General Permltfrom Department of Ecology will be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Is required for this site. o Transportation/Street 1. Street lighting Is required on public street frontages 2. All public streets andpi'ivate roads must'have 0.5 feet wide vertical curb. 3. Pavement thickness must follow city of Renton standards. 4., Ped~strlan connectivity must be provided with no missing portions. S. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay ~ ,~, ' .' 0'" , Requirements. ' ,Fire . 1. The fire Impact, fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee Is pai~at,tlme of building permit Issuance.' 2. The fire flo,!, requirement for a single family home Is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up o to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). Ifthe 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 requli'ements as long as they meet current codelnc1uding s,!nch stem fittings.. ' 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet Inside and 4S-fe~t outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150,feet, Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required. landscape Islands are not allowed in the cul- de-sacs. General Comments 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. All construction utility permits for drainage and street Improvements will require separate plan submittals. Ali utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.' A licensed Clyil Englne,er shall prepare the civil plans, The followli'lgnotes are supplemental Information provided Incorijunctlon with the admlnlstratl'!e land use action. Becopse these nates are provided as In!ormotir:m only, theya,re not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. ERe MItigation Measures and Advisory Note. Page S 015 ,------':-----_. -----------, . • I • " •. f:- W4.SHI~GT6NFoRES:rny CONSULTANTS. INc. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENTSPECIAL:.ISTS" , " ," " -,' . . ,"'." "".","' .,' '" '., .. " . 3601943-1723 • FAX 3601943-4128 '" ' -.. -""1 -Octolier7, 2014 " ,,~ .. '-. \. -BarbarnYarington . -Land Acquisition Manager HenleylJSA . j,' W F C .1 1919 Yelm HwySE, Suite C Olympia, WA 98501 -,',-., RE: Response to SEPADetennination -HenleyUSA'Tiffany Park Projectin Rent~n Dear Ms. Yarington: .'0 '" _ I have reviewed the SEPA detennination for the project and have the following comments with ,lespectto the tree and buffer requirements. I. J. have no comment~. with respect to the, 3Q% !ree retention requirements. _ The project plans meetthe requirements; and' is detailed in myTree Protection Plan report. 2., Item 4 -the '15 ft. btifferrequirement: It is my 'opinion, based on my experience in dealing with buffer creation ill ne~ developments, that potential tree retenti()n in a 15 ft. ~uffer strip cut out of a mature forest stand, will not be significantly different than a 10ft. - buffer. It will still be scattered trees, the equivalent of 1 row deep. The number of A~ditiomll save trees is unknown, b\lt will be very small. Regarding replanting -a double rC)w of planted trees within a 15 ft. wide strip will not appear substantially different that .in a lOft. strip. A double staggered row of trees can still be planted in lOft. as well as a 15ft. wide strip. Neither will appear natural for many years. Please"gfye me a call if you have questions. Respectfully submitted". '. . Washington _Forestry Consultants; Inc . •. £I~-m,v~ _-. Galen M. Wright. ACF; ASCA -,:ISA Board·Certified Master Arborist No.RN-OI29BU Certified 'Forester No. 44. . I .-~---.. -. "--" .. -~.- e'" CITY OF RENTON , CiiyClerkDlviSioD 1055 South Grady Way , RentoD"WA 98057, ' 4~430-6§10 ' '. Receipt " 2152 "'Date ,'tD-tO-/Ll' [] Cash ' , OCopy Fee 0 NotaryService g: C~eCk No. Q'd317J 9(Appeal Fee: E? ---'-'--_____ __ pescriptioll; ,'tRf>~{!I--t " r&-~"'~ l'Uv--~1,j~, cIS 'tsY-t\ &~< /.l;J\ -13 -cx::q S'~ ~. \~L' X , Funds Received From: NameQ<\-I{nG.('oS8 ;-:.\\ ~M;,{2e \ Chc, ..... oi'l I Address "5" d ~I:S f. W:.0\ \\-0-". =tI SCL) CitylZip 'Sx "",Mb MY=--9610 LI • TIffany Park Woods Advr:u.cY Group 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA9.8058· October 10, 2014 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Office of the City Clerk City of Renton Renton City Hall, ]1hFloor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ---------------- • CITY OF RENTOI'f RE: Reserve at TIffany Park; Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF, pp, CAR; Rocitle TImmons, Senior Planner; ProPerty Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7~ St; Renton, WA 98055; Applicant: Henley USALLC, 11100 Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar Dev Inc.; Wayne Potter; 18215 7'l' Ave S; Kent, WA 98032 To the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. Attached is our appeal to the City of Renton Draft Environmental Review Committee Report (DERCR) Dated September 22, 2014 that Includes a determination of mitigated non-significance (DNS-M) for the proposed Reserve at TIffany Park; Project Number LUA 13-001572 development Thank you for your consideration. Renate Baedon, ~ent TIffany Park Woods Advocacy Group -------------------------------- • October 10,2014 City of Renton Hearing examiner OffICe of the City Clerk City of Renton Renton City Hall, 7t' Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • RE: Reserve at TIffany Park; Project Number LUA 1 ~1572, ECF, Pp, CAR; Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Property Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7" St; Renton, WA 98055; Applicant: HenleyUSALLC; 11100 Main Street, SuHe 100; BelleVue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar Dev Inc.; Wayne Potter; 1821572' Ave S; Kent, WA 98032 Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checkliet, Dr8ft Environmental Review Committee Report deled September 22. 2014. and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. The proposed development of Approximatety 22 acres of forested land Into 98 residenUal paroels on 4 King County Paroels owned by the Renton School District Number 403 (as of October 7,2014) King County Paroel Numbers: 2123059061,2123059044,2123059051, and 2123059054 To the CHy of Renton Hearing EXaminer: The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) is submitting the following comments as an appeal to the City of Renton Oral! Environmental Review Committee Repolf (DERCR) Dated September 22, 2014 that Includes a determinaUon of mitigated non-significanca (DNS-M) for the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 1 ~1572 development. 1.0 OVERVIEW It should be noted that the 14 days allocated for citizens comments is Insufficient and that the City seems to have deviated from the standards SPEA procedures for this project In an apparent attempt to avoid the required environmental Impact statement (EIS), per RCW 43.21 C.031 , even though this project has gone on hold twice to develop more Information and additional studies that would already be consistent wHh an EIS. Additionally there are several documents and Iterations of site plans that are not provided to the public, and studies (including numerous reVisions) that are provided, however, many of these studies have revisions and . . H Is difflCU~ to determine what to evaluate In the review process. It was not until the September 22, 2014 DERCR was prepared that the citizens knew which studies (and reports) the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee would use In the DERCR. This means 18 documents must be reviewed and commented on In 14 days, and the Interesting part about the DERCR Is that H does not include the November 2013 SEPA checklist as an exhibit, even though this Is the only SEPA:doCument the DERCR Is using In Its SEPA analysis, and this SEPA checklist has numerous Incorrect ,statements and Incorrect analysis based on subsequent studies conductad after this document was prepared. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group 1725 Pierce Avenue S.E., Renton, WA 98058 206-715-3785 renton-opposites@comcast.net .-----~----------------------------------------- Page 12 • • Common,. for the CUy 01 RenIDn Hearing Exemlner from the TIffany Park Woods AINor:Jlcy Group ReseNe at TIffany Pall<; Project Number LUA13-OO1572. ECf. pp. CAR; Commen1s pertaining 10 the November 7. 2013 $EPA checfdlsl. D11ft E.nvlronmental Review Committee Report dated Septamber 22. 2014. and SUj)plemen1s1 Studies piepared for this project after November 7. 2014. . Rentoo. WA October 10. 2014 As the DERCR states on pages 5 and 6: The applicant has submitted thefollowlrig reports for review and analysis In support of the July 16. 2014 plat plan: • Exhibit 1 ERC Report • ExhibH 2 Preliminary Piat Pian (dated July 16. 2014) • ExhibH 3 Tree Cuttlng and Land Clearing Pian (dated July 16, 2014) • Exhibit 4 Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) • Exhibit 5 Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3, 2014) • Exhibit 6 Habitat Assessment (dated January 16, 2014) • Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Report (dated September 28,2012) • ExhlbH 8 Drainage Report (dated February 24, 2014) • Exhibit 9 Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014) • Exhibit 10 Public Comment Letters: 10.1·10.70 • Exhibit 11 Alternative Tree Cuttlng and Land Clearing Plan (August 29,2014) • Exhibit 12 Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) • Exhibit 13 Independent Secondary Review· Traffic • Exhibit 14 Independent Secondary Review WeUand (April 3, 2014) • Exhibit 15 Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -WeUand (July 9,2014) • Exhibit 16 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated February 11, 2014) • Exhibit 17 Habitat AssessmentTechnlcal Memorandum (dated June 12, 2014) • Exhibit 18 Landscape Plan (dated July 16, 2014) This Is a lot of documents to review and some of these documents are signed and stamped by licensed geologists and engineers which are too complex for the members of the TPWAG to review and comment on, therefore, the TPWAG retained the services of a principal hydrogeologlsVenginaering geologist from with SNR Company based In Duvall, Washington to conduct a site visit and review the geotechnical and other geologic/engineering documents. This hydrogeok?gist and engineering geologist (Steven Neugebauer) has over 34 years of experience In the geologic sciences and In environmental studies, Including the preparation of SEPA and NEPA EIS and reviewing EISs, EAs, and checklists. After reviewing the SEPA process for this project, Mr. Neugebauer haS indicated that the review ptocess should have become an EIS prooess. This Is especially the case with number of additiOnal studies that were required after the SEPA review process began and because of the holds that were plaoed on this project simply to address the additional Information that would have been required by an EIS anyway. TIffany Park Woods·Adwcacy Groop October 10. 2014 • • eom...,ts for the Cily of RenlDn Hearing examiner fr<!n .the Tiffany Park Woods MvocaCj Group Rese!ViIal Tiffany Park; ProjeCt Number LUA13-001572. ECF. pp. CAR; Conunents pertaining to the November 1. 2013 S~A checklist. Draft Environmental Rovl ... Commltlee Report dated September 22. 2014. and Supplemental Studl .. p .. pared for this prolect after November 1. 2014. Rent .... WA October 10. 2014 All of the suppoiting aocumentation required by the City of Renton Would be consistent with the actual EIS instead of a SEPA check6st and having to piecemeal the review process wihlle still have an incorrect SEPA checklist, wihichis the only actuar'SEPA document that was prepared. As stated above, the only actuaiSEPA document is the SEPA checklist and n unusual that the City of Renton did not require an update for the SEPA checklist prepared in November 2013 or for the Geotechnical Report September 28. 2012 considering these studies and documents Were prepared before the City required additional studies (wihlch is wihy IhS project was placed on hold twice and'is why an EIS should have been Page 13 required per RCW 43.21C.031 -Significant Impacts). Although the DERCR does not discuss the accuracy of the only SEPA document that is offiCially being used In the decision making process, the TPWAG has Included comments on this document. It should be noted that due to time constraints associated with only 14 days to review and comment on over 1 B documents. these comments are limited because there was insufficient time to comment on all documents. with these comments focusing on the primary sturdies and reports, the November 2013 SEPA document and the September 22, DERCR document. It should also be noted that per the October 7, 2014 e-mail from Roesle nmmons (City of Renton PM for the Tiffany Park Woods project) states: -----.--------.- Comment periods are always held prior to decisions/determinations in order to inform the decision process. Two formallwo-week comment periods were held (the second comment period was a courtesy not required by code). The first comment period ended on December 10, 2014 (I have attached the Notice of Application and comment period announcement). The second comment period ended on August 8, 2014 (I have attached the Notice of Application and comment period announcement). Finally. staff informally hald the comment period open to the public to provide comments on the project. As long as comments ere received prior to the determination/decision we are able to indude in our analysis. Therefore, the City will continue to acceptCC!rnments all the way up until th~ dose of the Public Hearing. However. comments are no longer able to be considered for the SEPA determination as « has already been issued. Comments receiv8d from now on will only b6 coilsidered when issuing a dedsion tin the Preliminary Plat. . 'The appeal period commenced on September 26, 2014 and will end at 5:00 pm on October 10, 2014/s it correci that the appeal would go thru the City Clerk to the Hearing Examiner for a fee of 250. 00. Yes, Appeals of the environmental !telerminatlon must be filed In writing on or before 5:09 P,rrJ, .on OctOb~r 19, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner. City of Renton. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 98057. Oddly, most of the 'mHigation' recommended In the DERCR pertains to development related mitigation rather than actual environmental mitigation. Tiffany Park Woods AdvocsCj Group October 10. 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renlrln HearIng Examiner from the TIllany Park Woods AIt/oc8cy Group Reserve at TIllany Park; Projed Number, LUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the Nove,rnl>er 1, 2013 &EPA checklist, Ollft e""lmnmental Review C!>mmlttee Report dated Septarnl>er 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studlei prepared for this projac1 after November1,2014. . , , Rentm, VIA October 10. 2014 This Is just one example of the c()nfuslon with commenting, H Is typically unclear what Is to be commented on and there is never any discussion of making comment periods longer. The typical time frame to comment on SEPA documimts Is 30 days, not 14 days. The City of Renton allocated citizen review time of 14 days makes reviewing and commenting on all of the supporting reports and the actual DERCR draft document virtually impossible, especially when the CHy of Page 14 Renton should have required an EIS. 2.0 SEPA CHECKLIST As discussed above, the SEPA checklist prepared by Wayne Potter wHh Novastar Development on November 7, 2013 Is the only 'SEPA' document that is presented and still used In the evaluation process (which was provided for public review). It Is unclear why the CHy did not require 8 revised checklist at a minimum, but based on the number of edditional studies required and environmental sensltivHy of the proposed development area (the site), the City should have required a SEPA EIS that would be current and discuss all of the environmental Issues In one document will all reports used to make the DNS-M determination. Included as an Appendix. The proposed Tiffany Park Woods development is located In Renton. WashinQton as is shown In Figure 1. It consists of four parcels owned by the Renton School District number 403 (as of October 10. 2014). this property was 'purchased' in the early 1970s as public property for the eventual construction of schools. It has been used as an outdoor recreational area (like a park) for over 3 decades and over tlie 3 decades. citizens have constructed trails. forts, swings, bicycle \racks, and made other Improvements. In fact the site Is STILL public property but is being treated as W It were private property (e,g .• the TPWAG requested permission from the school district 403 to have independent weHand studies conducted and was denied permission from the School District). Regardless, this site has been used by l00s of citizens for over 3 decades for recreation and these citizens have made Improvements on this site. Additionally, there Is a drainage easement on the site (listed In the preliminary THle Report) that Is not discussed In any document that the TPWAG or SNR reviewed. The SEPA checklist that Is still being used by the ERe only Included five studies that were used to prepare the SEPA checklist: 1. Storm water Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated November 2013 2. Geotechnlcl!tReport prepared by Associated Earth Sciences dated September 28,2012 3. ,Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by the Transpo Group dated November 2013 4. Wetland Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz WetiandlForest Ecologist dated October 30;2013 5. Tree Proteclion Plan and Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated November; 3. 2013 ' TIffany Park Woods AdYocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Can_Iller lie ~ of RAIn.,. Hu1ng Examiner tom ... TIIIII1y Pari< Woods NlvoaIq Qoup R-.. atTltfaly Pari<; Project NIInber lUA13-OO1572, ECf, PP, CAR; C_ pWInInglo .. NovtmbIr7, 2013 &EPA chlddio!, Draft e",I ... _1 Rev"" C_ Report daIod Sop4omber 22, 2014,.nd Supplonwal ~ p!OpIrtd "" ... projoct.ftor ""-'7,2014. Ren1oo, WA Ottober 10, 2014 Only one of Ihe8e documenla Is alii used il the DERCR, the Assoclaled EIrIh Sciences GeoIechnIcaI Report. which is diacussed il the next aection. ThIs means that ther8 W8I8 IIIOIIIhan 18 other atudIea and I8pOI1s prepared for the 'SEPA determination' after the SEPA cheddisI was p!8pII8d, yet the SEPA checklist was fle't'8r updated . The sile is approximately 22 ecres il aIze and Is the only undeveloped, fonIsIed 1188 in this portion of Tffany Park. H is surrounded by high density residential deY8lopments (Figure 2) and provides the only signlicant green space for the residents il the 1188 becallS8 H IS public land and \his Is one of the reasons H has bean Page 15 used recreationaIy for decades . FigIn 2· SIte on May 2013 AIr PhotogIaph from GoogIe Ed Plcl IIlcllaI, 2014 Titf,.,y PM< Wooda NlvoaIq Group Ottober 10, 2014 Page 16 • • Comments b Ihe City 01 RInIDn Heamg EXM1iIer Iram lie man, PIn Woods MIootcy GroI4> RewIo III rlffan, Part<; Project IUnbor lUA13-OO1572, ECf. pp . CAR; Conmon4s '*'"*' 10 1ho -.-r, 2013 &EPA chocklil1, DIIft Envlron_ Review CommIIIot Roport _ SopIomber 22, 201., ond SIIPI'II •• 1111 -.-p •• pllod for thlo projoct 1ft" New_r, 201 •• R"'tao .WA October 10. 201. The subject property is located In the southeast quarter of Section 21 , Township 23 Nor1h, and RInge 5 East; (Figure 3) the northwest property comer (II SE 1811 Street) is located II latitude 47.463995" and longitude - 122.175224°, II an approximate elevation of 399 feet above mean sea 1M! (ASl). Figure 3 -From hi Kilg CoIr1Iy Quarter Section Map. SEQ Section 21, T23N, RSE Based on the SEPA checklist, the propoeed development (site or subject property) consists of nlnety-eight (98) parcels with a total 8188 of approxinllely 22 acres (Figure 4). The site Is generaly dipping to the west, northwest at an approxinate average slope of 5%, with areas that have slopes up 10 35% (e.g . II the dead end of SE 1811 Street and elsewhere). H should be noted that the number of lots has continued 10 change, with the current number of lots either being 97 or 96 (this Is unclear). The aitels undeveloped, In 1990 (Figure 5 -July 1990 Air Photograph of Subject Property and VICinity, from Google Earth Professional, 2014) and continues 10 be undeveloped, school district merwland. However, just because the land Is not developed, does not mean that the land _ not used and that Improwments __ not made by citizens . However, the aile _ oompIetely cleared (88 _ the surrounding area) In 1936 -Figures 6 and 7 and H is unclear what the Ike _ being used for In 1936. However, k Is possible thll activities Included those that dealt with hazardous materials, which Is not discussed In any anvlronmental document (no Phaae I ESA _ conducted, however, the DERCR Indicates thai there are no environmental Impacts on the sHe, even though no studies were conducted). rlffan, PIn _~ GIotlp October 10. 201. • • Ccmmenillar the CIty of Rriln Hoomg E.uIMer .... the Tilllny Part Woods I¥NoI::ttcI G'OI.I> RMr;e II TlJIany Pal<; ProjIcINlrnberLUA13-0015n, ECf, PP, CAR; C_ .......... "' ............ 7. 2013 8EPAcllec:khI. . i I Dllft Envln>o_1 Rlvlow ComnIItoo RoporIdIIod So!*o,obot 22,2014, Ind SuppIon_1III81udIoo pIIpIIId "" .. pn>jott ofIor ..... ",b.a.2014, Renton. WA <k*lber 10, 2014 , " , ... , -i, ; • , j , . ' \.~'~! ..-, .' ."".ct-' ... ~ 5· Jdy 15, 18118 AIr PhoiIgiiph 110m GoogIe En, 2014 • \\' ' .. \ • , \.J. <-- ,. The 1860 lAnd 0Iftce Map(T23N. R5E) \hit Includes the subject propeIty IOd vIciniIy (Figure 8) IOd the 1895 USGS topographic map rI the Tacoma Quadrangle (Figure 9) suggest that Ihent may be structural anomalies 8AOCiaIed with the propoeed developmentllile, Page 17 Page 18 • • Commonls fer the CIy of _ HoorIng ExornM .... the TlIIony PIlI< Woods MIota:t Group R ...... II r"*'r P..-; P!qoct _lUA13.(1()1512. ECF, pp, CAR; ConrI-* porIIIMIa 10 tho ......... 1, 2013 &EPA dIodiJlIt, DrIft Env __ ~ Report _ &ojlll lboo 22, 2014, IIId Supp~ ,."'-'-pttpIIod lot tllil projoct _ ......... 1,2014, _,WA ~10,2014 Figure 6 ·l936AJr Phcqi!ipll of Site end VIcinIIy -High, from King ~ IMAP, 2014 Figure 7 ·l936AJr PhoIogr!ipll of Silt end VIcInity. Mid, from King ~!MAP, 2014 The geomorphology of the _ (Figure 10) .uggests that the school diItricI property (eIIe) may be on a relict landslide or afIacted by a fauH ; possibly a splay of the Seattle FauH Zone that Is located approximately 3,9 miles north of the site (Figure 11), D\mg the site visit, hummocky ground and bent IrMs were observed; theM features are ollen an r.dIcator of ground movement through surna creep or deeper slumps (landslides), The September 28, 2012 ,AS8OCiated Earth ScIence studies (the report does not state when the field studies were oonducted) suggest that there are two depoeIts on this site (the last pit logs were Interpreted by Mr. Neugebauer), reoessIonaI outwash deposits 0WIIying glacial til, with the til typically being enoountered at about 4 feet below the ground surface. The overlying recessional outwash deposits have higher Inle!preled hydraulic conductivity which means that unsaturated zone preferential !low will be present at the outwaahItil contact, which can CI8aIe 00I1dition& that are conducive kl surface creep Ind IhaIow slumping. TlIIony PIlI< Woods MIota:t Group ~10,2014 --~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----------------, • • Ca!vnents for !he ~.,_ Heamg E.-..... fie ToIIIny Pn Woods Mvot:JIt:t ~ RaseMoIi TlftMy~ P!tIjoct _ LUAl3-001572. ECf. PI'. CAR; ComnwD porIIiniI1g .. 1Io No.""'" 7. 2013 &EPA ehocdot, DIIft E~' R_ ~ Roportdalod s.p.nbll 22, 2014. Ind Q.",,'=,*111'_ ~ "" .. projocI olio< Nooombo<7.2014 . Ronlon, WA ~10.2014 The zone of bioturbation (usually pment wi1hi1-40 Inches of the ground eurfaoe) CI88Ies macropores which can quickly tranapoI1 eurfaoe WIler 10 the oontact with the ~ til and the overlying recessional outwash deposits . This water combined with any Impacts to the isostatic equllbrium of the slope (euch • the toe of a slope being cut 011) can reslAt i1 surface creep and shallow slumping . FigIn 8 -From .. 1860 lJnd 0IIIce ~ T23N . R5E (Section 21) FigIn 9 -From .,.1895 USGS TopogIlllA tic ~ 01 .. Tacoma Q.Jadoalgte. tom GoogIe Ea1h Ptof aui oo lli. 2014 Tllmy PIWI< Woods Mvot:JIt:t Group Octobof 10. 2014 Page 19 Page 110 • • Ccmments lor !he ely 01_ Hu:Ilg Exami1«!rom !he Titllny P8I1c Woods ~ Gtoup ~ at TlIIony PaR; Prtjoct tbnber lUA13~lSn. ECF, pp, CAR; ~ ~ 10 tho NoHmbor 7, 2013 EPA choc:IIIiII, [)qft Envlr''''''ltllll "-"low ~ Rtport doted SopIombtr 22, 2014, and SUppls , .. l1li __ ood lor this pn>jocI_ .... _7,2014, R_,WA Odobor 10, 2014 FIgIn 10 • Ten1in MIp from GoogIe Mapa, 2014 FlgIn 11 • July 2013AK PhoIogrJph willi USGS HoIocetMl FauIt_rl8y, GoogIe Ed Pro'miOoIlll, 2014 The 1895 USGS tlpogI arAliC map of the Tacoma quadrangle suggests thai a WIbnd __ located eouIh of the plopoeed development. This weiland Is In a "near alignment with other iIIoIated water featunlS ~ the MIl and ..t, willi \he trend baing I1OI1hMSt ~ 1OUtheast. It II vwy poealble that theM featll8l 818 lag ponds II8IOClaIId with eerthquake Ids flat haw Impected \he IIructurII geology of this _. Unfortunately, there 818 no MW geoIog~ maps lor this 8I8a that were a8IIed Iller 200i when UOAR became available . Without UOAR or actual fietd stucIIea on the sliJject property being conducted lor lie geologic map, the surface geology Is based on older studies that haw been conducted In the mapping _. TItIIny P8I1c Woods ~ GnloJp Odobor 10, 2014 -------------. • • CommenIS for 1I1e City of Ron"" --.g Exnilet!fan'" TifIIrIy PIlI: Woods NNot:¥:( Qoop R ...... at TifIIrIy Pan; PI!ljoct Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF. pp. CAR; Commontl poIIIInIng to ... Nov_7, 2013 SEPA chIclcJiIt, Drofl Environ_I Rev"" ~ Report dated Soptombtr 22, 2014, Inc! 8101""'."' .. 01_ propoIOd Iorthll pIOjocI_ Nov_7,2014. Ronlal. WA ~10.2014 Regardless, the geomorphology 01 this 8188 BIroo;IIy suggests that I80888ionaI outwash deposits will be present on the surface (as does the As80Ciated Earth Sciences September 28,2012 test pit logs). Figure 10 (Terrain Map) strongly auggesb that either a IandsIde scarp Of relict river bank Is present to the west of the sKe. If this Is a relict river bank, k Is highly Iikefy that the surface deposb are reoasslonal outwash deposits overlying glacial lodgement till . Mul~neaux, D. R, 1965 (Figure 8) sllggests that there are several s1rucIUraI features In the vicinity of the sMe, Including the Renton anticline (folding). The geologic map suggests there Is a wide range In geologic ages Page 111 for the deposits in the vicinity 01 the 8ite, which also suggests that ttruclural conirols are present (folding and faulting). This map does suggest that glacial tiN deposits are present on the slle, however, based on Mr. Neugebaue(s interpretation 01 the geomorphology, Associated Earth Sciences (AES) test pit logs, and a review of boring and wetliogs for this area obtained from the depaI1rnent 01 Ecology most, N not an of the surface deposMs on the ale are more likely tl be Vashon Age recesalonal ouIwash deposMs (river deposMs), which are most ikely fluvial deltaic deposits associated with the draining glacial lakes, which generally drained to the west, south, and southwest before the Juan de Fuca plate began tl melt and float . Figure 12 • From IIle 1965 GeoIogk: Map oIlile Renm Quadrangle, KIng CounIy. Washingbl. Mullineaux, D. R., USGS These delta oomplexas became relict glacial mettwater channels that are CUmliltly occupied by undeIflt riven! In what Is identified as river valleys. These river valleys are actually remnant deltas thai were cut when the glacial lakes drained aller the Juan de Fuca plate no longer blocked the StIIit 01 Juan de Fuca (this Is similar 10 the Oso area whenlthere are numerous relict landslides present becaues the deMa materials are Inherently unstable without the wa\8r they were deposMed In). TifIIrIy Patlt Woods NNot:¥:( Group Octobe< 10, 2014 • • Coml118llBfor the City of ROiltoJt.HtiarIno Examiner from the TIffany Pari< Woods II<NocJJcy GroUP. . R ...... et nilany Parl<; Project Number LUAI3-OO15n, ECF, PP, CAR; Commen1s pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA .checklist, Omft Environmental Review Committee Report dated Saptember 22, 2014, end Supplemental Studies prepmd for !hit project after November 7, 2014, . . Rentoil, VIA October 10, 2014. What tllis means Is that the geology, especially the structural geology in this area Is complex, as Is the ground water hydrology. Hoviever, the AES studies were preliminary and did not Inc.lude the level of study to Identify potential geologic hazards .and Issues with near surface ground water hydrology es Is stated in all of the wetland reports prepared for this site. All of the weHand reports state that the water table Is present at or within 7 Inches of the ground surface In all Page 112 wetland areas. The water table is, as it sounds, a flat surface that covers a large area (even perched aqu~ers), however, there Is no conclusive evidence that perched ground water conditions are present because no piezometers were installed to make this determination. The potential Impact to development (and to ground weter qualijy) Is not discussed anywhere, even though the weHand reports have been accepted and the AES studies Indicate that ground water can be present to the ground surface on this site. If this Is the case, there will be a lot of problems with grading, Installing underground utllijles, and with foundation drains. More Importantly, the proposed vault could have problems staying submerged because n the ground water rises to the ground surface, the vault can float and rise above the ground surface. Because both the wetland studies and the AES studies state that the ground water table has been Identified to be at the ground surface (AES simply states ij will be present during the rainy season), because of this, detailed hydrogeologic studies should have been conducted to determine if development Is feasible and to Identify any potential Impacts to ground water quality. Regardless, the following subsection provides the TPWAG comments that are specific to the ONLY SEPA document provided (and used) by the OERCR. 2.1 COMMENTS FOR THE SEPA CHECKLIST Item 11 on the SEPA Checklist states: Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the projeCt and site. The project involves the subdivision of approximately 21.7 acres of land encompassing four tax parcels into 98 single-family detached homes, As part of Ihis development there are threa sensitive area/open space tracts conSisting of approximately 2.8 acres lor 13 percent of the sna) which have been set aside to preserve existing wetlands ana Significant lreas. There will be approximately 3,700 linear feet of public roadway (wah utilities) constructed 10 serve the proposed lots. This Is C9Tpletely Incorrect. Subsequent studieslridlcate that there are five weHand areas and'the.area required for signifICant trees (or planting) has changed as has the number of lots (there will be 97 to 96 lOts). This cheCklist should have been updated, because review by citizens Is difficult when the only SEPA document that wasilicluded in the DE'RCR review is inaccurate. Tiffany Pari< Wood,Advocecy Group October 10.2014 • Canments for lIle City of Renlon Heamg Examiner from file Tiffany Par!< Woods MIocar:t !?loup Reserve at Tiffany Par!<; Project Number lUA13-OO1572, ECf, PP, CAR; Comments perfalnliig to 1he November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Envln>nmentaf Review CommIttee Report dated September 22, 2014, end SUpplemental Studle. prepared for this project after November1,2014, Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Item 1 (c) (Earth) states: 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. . Please referenCe the soils report prepared by Associated Earlh SCiences, Inc. The AES studies are report were preliminary and were limited based on budget (the Renton school district Page 113 hired AES) and state that additional studies are required. Page 1 of this report states: This report is inten~ed to provide a general geotechnit;al feasibility analysis of the s#e. This report is not intended to be used es the sole geotechnical Input for eny Site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements. for. a Special study 8S outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4·3-050J~. Interestingly the DERCR stipulates that this report will ba the sole geotechnical document that will be used to develop this site, as stated on page 7: The geotechnical report does include specific recommendations in order to mn/gate potential geotechnical impacts including: s#e preparation, temporary cut slopes, s#e dlstutbance, Winter construction, structural fill, foundations, pavement recommendations. Therefore, staff recommends as 8 mmgafion measure that the applicant be required to comply w#h the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Engineering Report (&hiM 7). Mitigation Measures: 1. All earlhworf( performed, Implemented by the epplicant,' shaIlbe consistent w#h ther9commendationsof the geotechnical I8pOrt, prepa~ by Associated Eaith Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, .2012, The AES report will be discussed In the next section. item 1(d) states: ----------------, Are there surlace indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. Tiffany Par!< Woods MIocar:t Group October 10, 2014 Page 114 • • Canmon1IIorIheClyol_ ~Exrilor from lie TlIIan, Part Woods -, ~ ReseM 81 Tlffan, Ptw1c; Project Number LUA13-OO1Sn. ECf . pp. CAR; ~,....iq 10 tho ......... '.21113 &EPA choddlot. DrIft erwit'onn.al _ ~ RIport _ StpIon .... 22, 21114. lind Supplll.'" 8IudIoa JIIIPIIId lor tIIIa projod _ Il00 ... 7.2014. Rlnm.WA ~10.2014 SNR obIeIved humrnoc:ky groood IIId 'bent' "-ttwou;IOUIlhilliIe (Figures 13 IIId 14), especiIIy on aleeper 1Iopee. Bent "-IIId hummocky ground 118 typicaIlndIcam 01 ground 1IKMII1I8IlI. There W8I8 no comments In the AES repoI1 regarding IMM conditions nor W8I8 any studies conducted to detennIne r ground IIlOY8I1l8IIIIs oocurring on the lite (the geoIech.1icaI1Iudy was p!IIIminary and was Imited due 10 budget consIIIints). The geologic map, the geomorphology 01 this 1188, the proxinlty 10 the Seattle Fau. Zone (8 splay may pass through the site), the stratigrIphy, IIId the subsurface hydrology atrongly euggests that the eIte Is. candidate for shallow ground movement and shallow alumps. However, this was never addressed with addKionaI, full scale geotechnical and engln.ing geology studies. The grading plans 1lllUm8 that theIe Is no near surface ground wMer or aIope liability Iseuee, however, II wettand reports IndicaIe that the ground water table was pmenI at or wiIhIn 7 Inches 01 the gIOIIld lUlface In the wettand 11888 when the etudies the etudies W8I8 oonducIed IIId the AES repoI1l1a1e1 that ground wiler will be much higher during the rainy eeaeon. Also,. atII8d aboo/e, the eI~ method to IuepecI unstable IIopee Is 10 look II the IrMa and walk the ground mace. If bent "-1119 pmenI and I hummocky surface Is pI8MIII, K Is very lkely that ground moveman\ ~ and probably stills occurring. TIIIon, Part WoodI-, Gtoup October 10. 2014 • • Commonll b Ihe City 01 Rri>1 HonIg e...... tom lie T",,",y PIlI< _ M«x:tct G'o<4> R .... II TlllalyPart; PrnjIcI NoJrberlUA13.()015n. ECF, PP, CAR; ecrr..a .................. , .... 7,2013 SEPA chocklist, Oroft Eml_ R .. 1ow c...-RlpOIIdaIod Soptombo< 22, 2014, Ind .. """".,111_ """,rod lot .. piOjIct_ ""_7,2014. Ren4on. WA ~10,2014 Page 115 ,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 116 • • Comments for Itle City of Renton Hearing ExamIner from Itle Tiffany PaI1< Wood. ArtifJoar:y Group R ...... al TIffany Park; Project Numbe1 ~UAI3'OO1572, ECF: pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November T, 2013 SEPA choe1dlsl, Draft Envlronmentsl Review Committee Report daled September 22, 2014, and Supplementsl Sludl .. propared for this pro/ad after Novembe1 T, 2014, Rentoo, WA October 10,2014 Item 1 (d): ._---:>------------_._--_ .. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A preliminary grading plan has been prepared for this project and e copy has been attached. Based on this plan, we anticipate that the on-sfte structurel grading to balance is approximately 95,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The on- sile strippings (topSOil) is estimated at 22, 000 cubic yards and will either be spread on the finished lots andlor exported off sile. At this time no impolt or export of material is expected. Some additional grading will occur on a lot by lot basis during the home construction phase. Again, this Is incorrect, The DERCRbidicates that 70,000 cubic yards of material will be moved and 21,000 cubic yards of material will be stripped, Also, H is very likely that stripped materials will be exported offslte. Item 1 (9): ~~ut what percent of the sue will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphaft or buildings)? The total on-sue impervious surface (roadways) will be approximately 4. 65 acres (or 21%) ofthesfte area (21.7 acres). Based on a maximum impervious area per lot of 75 percent, we have estimated a total impervious area (for 98 lots with an averege 101 size iJf 5,200 square feet) of approximately 8.75 acres or 382,255 square feel. This suggests that there will be 13,45 acres of impervious surfaces on the sHe, H is unclear how many Impervious surface acres remain aller all of the changes that have occurred since the November 2013 SEPA checklist was prepared, However, C9nsidering approximately 4,5 acres of wetlands and retained trees will be present this only leaves about three acres that are not Impervious that are not associated with a critical area or with tree retention and proposed buffers, This suggests that during a normal year with approximately 40 inches of precipitation, would generate approximately 44,83 acre feet on the sHe each year, with most of the precipHation occurring from November to April, There :a,re325,851 gallons in an acre foot This does not Include runoff from yards and other cleared areas, which will be much higher than the current forested conditions. The current runoff from the forested sHe Is estimated to be less than an acre foot due to evapotranspiration (up to 75% of preclpHation Is removed by this) and infiltrstion (up to 20% can be removed via infiltrstion). Item 2 .-'-'--~-----------------.-------.--------, 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 Tiffany .Pari< Woods ~ Group October 10, 2014 • • . Commenls for the City of Rentoo HearIng examiner from the Tiffany Perl< Woods M<caJ", G'oup ReseMl at Tiffany Perl< Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF, pp, CAR; Commen1s pertaining to tho November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review CommI1Iao Roport dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studloo pnlpIrad for this project .fter November 7, 2014. project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities ff known. . During plat and home construction, emissions from construction equipment and vehicles will occur on a temporary basis. When houses are completed there will be emissions genereted from autOmobile/service truck traffic. At this lima there are no known quantffies. b. Are there any off-sije sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The site is surrOunded by existing single-family developments that generate typical residentiil/ emissions; however. there are no known emissions that will affect this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: All equipment will be in compliance with EPA standards for engine emissions, and during constructiail watering will be provided to control dust particles. Fireplaces will be used in accordance with requirements of the Puget Sound Air QualitY Board (this is ectually the Pugel Sound Clean Air Agency hItp:llwww.pscleenair.orgI.) Rentoo. WA October 10, 2014 Per SEPA requirements, this should be compared to e no action scenario (comparable to existing conditions). The TPWAG did not observe any studies or reports that addressed air quality relative to existing conditions nor does the SEPA checklist eddress deadheading trucks for the offsite transport of soils that cannot be used on the site or the impacts to air qualijy after the development is completed such as wood smoke from fire places, automobiles, emissions from furnaces and gas water heaters, etc. it is still unclear what air quality impacts will be present during construction and after construction because this has not been quantified. Item 3(a). Surface Water: 1) Is there any 5uiface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? ~ yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows Into. Yes. There are three isolated wetlands located on site. Please reference the wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz. This is incorrect, there are five (5) wetlands present site and the report prepared by Schulz is not even provided because other studieS (by Schulz and Otak) have bean conducted slrice the SEPA checklist was prepared. Additionally ,there Is no discussion regarding the drainage easement on the site (shown in the Title insurance report). Tiffany Pari< Woods M<caJ", Group October 10, 2014 Page 117 Pagel 18 • • Commenls 11>' Ill. Cily of Roolrln Hearmg Examiner fnxn Ill. TIffany Park Woods MoIxaci Group ReseMl at Tiffany Pelle; Project Number LUA13'()()1512, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining 10 the November 7, 2013 SEPAchocklls1, Ol1lft Envlionmontal Review Commlt1BO Report dated Sep10mber 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepartd for 1h1s project after November 7, 2014, " Ronlrln, WA October 10, 2014 Additionally, ff, as ASE, Schulz;and Otak suggest that a water table Is present at or within 7 Inches of the ground surfaoe, there will be surface water flows all over this site during the winter beceusa H ground water Is present at the ground surfaoe, the soil becomes impervious. -------------------, Item 3 (2) Will the project require any wort< over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the de~cri~ waters? If yes, please describe and attach avai.lable plans. Yes. Plat and home constroction will occur within 200 feet of the on-site wetlands; however, a// constroction will be located beyond the required buffers as established by City Code. Page 10 of the DRECR states: Supplemental Independent Seconda/}' Review (Exhibit 15), there does not appear to be buffer adjustments on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C to ta~e into 8CC9unl the .'Iock + load walls' proposeQ.,lt ap~rs th¢ portions of the. WCllls may fa]1 within the proposed final buffer edges. If this is the case, the plans should be revised to avoid these impacts, or to accurately show the permanent buffer impacts. This strongly suggests that some activities will occur within buffer areas. /tem 3-3 Estimate the amount of fi//and dredge material that WOUld be placed in or removed from surfiIce water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. This Is incorrect basad on the grading plans that would Include filling ephemeral drainage networks on the site and the drainage easement on the sHe. Item 3-4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and apprOximate quantities if known. No. There is a significant amount of storm water that Is diverted onto the site through the drainage easement and from other sources. The proposed development would obviously divert thasa flows and the natural ephemeral drainage system. Item (3-6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Tiffany Park Wood, Nlvocacf Group October 10,2014 • • Canments for the City of Renlon HearI1g ExamIner from the Tiffany Pari< Woods MKx:acy G'oup ReseMO at Tiffany Pari<; Projfict Number LUA 13,001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comme.nlB ""rlBlnIng to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checkllsl, Draft Envlron"'nlBl Review Committee R.po~ dated Sep1ember 22, 2014, aild Su~1 S1udlet prepared lOr this prolec:t after November7,2014. Rent"" WA October 10, 2014 -------_._----- This Is incorrect. Stonn water will be generated on the streets and this stonn water becomes point source flowln the stonn water system (Including unlined drainage ditches). Additionally, because no Phase I ESA has been conducted H is unknown if any potential contaminants are loCated on this site (or other potential envlronmentallmpacts). However, per the Clean Water ArJ. Section 502, point source waters is considered to be polluted: Page 119 (6) The tenn 'pollutant' means dredged spoil, solid weste,. incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioaCtive materials, heat, wrecked 0; discarded eqUipment, rock, sand, ~lIar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This tenn doas not mean (A) 'sewage from vessels' within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (8) water. gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either 10 facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of lhe State in which Ihe well is located, and if such State detennines that such injection or disposal wfll not result in the dagradation of ground or surface waler resources. (14) The .tenn 'point source' means any discernible, confined end discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, (jitch, cl!annel,[unnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure •. con@iner. rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding 9P8[Btion,. or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This tenn does not include agricultural stonnwater discharges and raturn flows from irrigaled agriculture. (19) The tenn 'pOIlution'means the man-made or man-induced alteration oflhe chemical, physi~/. biological, and radiological integrity of wBter. This is especially the case, if es stated In the wetland reports and the AES geotechnical report, that the ground water table is at or within 7 Inches of the surface, suggest that waters of the State can be Impacted by contaminants of concem that cannot be removed by a screen. It also suggests that ground water quality can be impacted due to the presence of ground water at or within 7 Inches of the surface. It also suggests that there could be muCh greater quantities of stonn water generated on the site du~ng the rainy season when ground water is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface (saturated solis at the ground surface are impervious). Item 3-b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description. purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Tiffany PIlI1< Woods ~ Group October 10, 2014 Page 120 • • Commenls for tile Cily 01 Renton Hearfn!i EiBminer froo1 tile TIffany Park Woods MIor:a"1 Group ReseNe et TIffany Park; Project Numbet LUA13'()()1572. ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining 19 the November 7,2013 SEPA cheekfls1, Draft Envlronmentsl Review Comml1lee Report dated September 22, 2014, end Supplementsl Studies prepared Ioi tills project efter November 7, 2014, RenlM,WA 0cI0ber 10, 2014 There Will be no groundwater withdrawn as a resu# of this project (public water will be provided); however, stormwater will be collected by a gravity. drainage system and discharged to an on-site storm pond, The stormwater collected will be discharged at an approved rate into the existing storm system within S.E. 18th Straet. Also, ~onie stormwate; collacted from the house roof drains will be ilisCh8rgeiJi/JtoiheAQ:s~eW91lands toprovide a f9-char9f1ifu.iflJg §torm ~ventS. This is Incorrect. Wetland hydrology is ground water hydrology which means that storm water will be discharged directly into ground water in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State codes such as the Underground Injection Control Permn (UIC) requirements when discharging dlr8ctly into ground water. Additionally, as previously stated, all wetland reports and even page 4 of AES report (this does not Indicate an elevation that AES believes the ground weter will reach), Indicate that ground water will be present at higher elevations during the rainy season. Two different wetland studies indicate the water table was at or wnhin 7 Inches of the ground surface (the water table is equivalent to an unconfined ground water equifer). Based on the fact that all hydrologic studies indicate that at or near surface ground water is present, it would be very difficult not to impact ground water on this site when the water table is at or wnhin 7 inches of the ground surface. Detailed hydrogeologic studies should be conducted as would have been required ff an EIS was required by the CHy (as is required by RCW 43;21C.031). In realny an EIS should have been required when the CHy put the project on hold to allow th.e developer or property owner fulfill all of the neCessary studies at once and to insure that all SEPA documents are actually current and eocurate. This also states that a storm pond will be used when in realHy a storm water vault will be used (this creates Hs own problems because of the required maintenance (storm water vaults must be cleaned yearly and any screens or filters many need to be serviced or changed more frequently -ff these facilities are not maintained correctly, they will allow all pollutants to enter the 60 inch storm water system and reach waters of the United Statas (Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to the Cedar River). Item 3-0. Water Runoff (including storm water): ------------------------------~ 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, ff any Qnclude quantities, ff known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Stonn water will be collected by 8 series of catch basins and conveyed by stormwater pipe to the on:Sfte stonnpOnd (detention) designed in accordance withihi/City of Renlon Storm wafer Design Manual (Addendum to the King County stormwaler guidelines). The system will also convey drainage from roof and footings drains to the stonn pond. TIffany Park Woods Mvocact Groop October 10, 2014 • • Conmenls for !he City of Renton Hearing Examiner from !he Tiffany Parl< Woods Advocacy Goup Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-OO1572. ECF. PP. CAR; Comments 'pertalnlngt" the Novemlier 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report da1ed September 22. 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared forthls ill~ject sfter Novernblr 7. 2014. Renton. WA OctOber to, 2Ot4 This statement is Incorrect, A storm water vauK will be used and these vaults require a lot of maintenance to operate correctly, Who will pl1ividathis maintenance and be responsible for the water qualHy leaving the storm water system on this site? Item (3-<:-2) could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe, Unlikely. As discussed above, all storm water will be collected,and conveyed to an approved detention pond, Furthermore, the storm water will pass through a storm filter vault (water quality) prior to discharge off site. This states that there will be a storm water detention pond and then to a 'storm filter vault'. It Is unclear if a storm water pond will be used on this site, however, If It is and is unlined, there can be direct discharge to ground water when the ground water table is at or within 7' of the ground surface. Direct discharge of storm water to ground water is prohibited by State Health Codes, the Clean Water Act arid the Safe Drinking Water Act unless a UIC permit Is obtained (and this requires a high level of treatment before the water can be discharged into ground water). Item 3 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As previously discussed, all dreinage will be collected and treated (storm filter vault) prior to discharge (for more detailed discussion see the attached storm water riA prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.). See comment above. Item 4 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Upon completion of the project. all vegetation within the developable portion of the property (epproximately 18,6 acres) will be removedlaltered, c. Us! threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: As r~uired by code" we will be preserving 30 percent of significant trees (andlor) providing mitigation with replacement trees) and protecting the on-site wetlands. The existing trees tobe s8ved (approximately 102 trees) and wetlandlbuffers total 2.8 acres, or 13 percent of the site, Tiffany Parl< Woods AdvOCidr:! Group October 10, 2014 Page 121 • • Canmenll lor the CllyolRenbl HoariIg Examiw ..... lie TlllMy Port< Woods """"*" ~ R ...... TlllMy PIR; Prqoct ~ LlJA13-«l15n, ECf. pp. CAR; ConmInII pII1IIoq 111 .... ...,.,.., 1. 2013 &EPA .-JtIt. Draft e ... '.....-Row .. CommIIoo Roport _ Soptan ..... 22, 201 •• lind 51",. , .. 1411 &Iud'" """""" lor 1h1o prI>jocIlfI .. Il00'"''*1.201 •. RenIOn. WA 0cI0ber 10,201. This Is inooIrect based on !he DERCR. howeYIII', M Is \IIlCU' how many acres wi be cIeanId (this checIdist suggests that 18.6 out of 22 8CIII wi. be cIeanId). The habitat studies did not Include _ \han one day of field studies IhereIo!e k Is dit'ficIj kl delennine what Ipecies 818 actuaIy present, 8IpecIaIy migrating epecie8 . The studies would need kl be _ oomprehenslve If an EIS were required. HoweYIII', citizens have provided the city with photographs of aansItIve 8p8Cies, such • the PiIeated W~ and other species, such 88 Page 122 bobcats, FIgure 15 • M-. fWd.bIIIII. j ... ocker, "* hlU11llOUl ~ holes; PtIeIIed WoodpecQr have been obseIl'Id on the Site Tllfany Port< Woods """"*" Group Odcber 10. 201. • • . .. Commenlslor the City 01 Renlotl Hearing ExamIner ~oni!he Tiffany Pari< Wood. Advocacy G'OIJP R ... rve at Tiffany Pari<; Projed Number lUA 13-(KU572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to Ihe November 7, 2013 SEPA chockll.t Draft Envlronmental Review CommIttee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemel1lal Studlea prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton. WA October 10, 2014 Additionally, the habitat studies. did not focus on vegetation, Including species that are state heritage pants (not detailed plant studies were conducted by any botanists), These studies would be required by an EIS. Item 5 c. Is the sHe part of a m/graffon route? If so, explain Not to our knowledge, d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhanoe wildlife, if any: There will be approximately 2,8 acres of undisturbed open spaoe provided to help mitigatl! urban wildlife. There is a known migration route to the northwest, however, H is unclear why this sHe is not a migration route or what will happen with the wildlife that uses the sHe es a habHat when approximately 18 acres are cleared (and about 4 acres of isolated Wetlands will be left along with a buffer area 10 -15 feet wide)? This could drive the wildlife into the surrounding neighborhoods and can present a danger to the existing residents In this area (and their pets) when the existing forested habHat Is destroyed, The sHe is connected to the northern forested area (that bo~ndsthe south side of the Cedar River) which suggests there Is a corridor to the river from this site, Addttionally, tt is likely that more deer will be htt by automobiles when the habitat Is completely removed, Item 7 -Environmental HeaHh 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, dascribe. Unlikely. However, during construction there is always the risk of an accident involving construction equipment and diesel fuel or gasoline during house building. Considering a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has not been conducted and the site was completely cleared in 1936 It Is unclear how anyone knows if any hazardous wastes are present In the soils or the ground water on this sHe, It Is unclear what will happen ~ contaminated solis or ground water are encountered. A Phase I ESA should have been conducted as part of the SEPA process and Is required for an EIS. Item 8 -LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjaoent propertias? Vacant undeveloped land. Adjaoent properties include single-family residential and public utility righl-of-way. b. Has the site been used for agricu#ure? If so, describe. Page 123 Page 124 • • Canmonls for !he City 01 R""'" HeaiIg Euniw fran !he TVIooy Part Woods NNot:1Jq GIoI4> R_ II TlIIIny port; Projod Number LUAI3~15n. ECf. PI'. CAR; eo.r..a pot1IInkog 10 1110 Novtmbet 1. 2013 SEPA ohoddlot, DrIft E/1'IIron_1 Rovioor ~ RopoII dItod ~ 22, 2014 ..... Suppl,m.,,11I SIudioo ptIpItIcI for Ihle projocIlfIw Il00_1.2014. _.WA ~10.2014 No. c. Describe 8I1y structures on the sffe. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. This Is Inconect. The site Is public land at the time these comments W8I8 prepared (owned by the Renton School District) and has WI extensive trail system thai was constructed by and rnair1ained by local citizens, mprovements, and thel91s apparantIy allruclule located on the slle. The site has been used as a green space and recreational p8Ik area for at least 3 decades as is shown In the foIowtng photographs. Figin 16 -Foil oonItrucIIId on lie lite A1!1101t" sIrucIuI88 that are I8Iated to forts 818 for aIreoIt WIll games conducted often (piayet's come from as far away as Puyallup, maybe hrther). M previously stated, this site Is 8 major source of recreation for local citizens and o4heI1 i1 the area. TIffany PaR Woods Mvo<:#:y Gtoup October 10. 2014 • • Ccmmenls for Ihe CIty of Renkln Heamg ex..... tom ... TiIIIn, Pat1c Woods NNx::iJct Group R ........ TItfen, Par1I; f'Iqoc:tNllnber lUAl3-001572, ECf , PP, CAR; eo.m.a portaInMg 10 .. ,*,"-7,2013 SEPAchockh1. Draft environmental RevIew CornrNbt RIportdatod SepIombtr22, 2014,Ind Supplo",.,,1I11IIudIot """,rod forth. ptOjtct IfItr Nov_7,2014. Renilln. WA Odaber 10. 2014 FigIn 17 -Fort on III, ncIe bent r-Illd hummock!ippIIIIIICI of gIOIIld IUIfIce Figure 18 -Banked CUM lor bicycles local citizens desIro~ Ibout five of tMllTllo reclaim the nil TtfIan, Pari< Woods NNx::iJct Group Odaber 10, 2014 Page 125 Page 126 • • CanmenIS b ... ely of RonIon Hoamg ElfIn*l« i'om ... T1IIany PIn Woods ~ Group R_II T1IIany Porto; Prqoct _lUA13-OO1Sn. ECf. pp . CAR: eon-a ............ 1110 _7. 2013 &EPA.-. Draft Env~ ........ _ ~ R-' _ Soptot,ibor 22, 21114. one! IiIlFFh ,.a! ~ -'" lor U. projoct _ Now.' ..... 7,21114. RonIon. WA CW>orl0.2014 Tltfany PIn Woods ~ Gioup October 10,2014 Figure 19· SWcIIn Ioc*d on $lie • • Ganments for !he Qy 01 R ...... Heomg e..-i:om ... TlIIany Park Wcodo Nmctct Qoup -.e. nr..y PI!\; Projoct_LlJA1~1572, ECF, pp, CAR: ~ ,...,... ..... Nov_7, 21113 SEPAchIcIII1, Orlft Env'""'-GI R ... CcmnIIIee IIoport daIod ~ 22,21114, and SU •• I0" .... ' SIudIot pIIpIl1d .... 1hiI projoct IfIor Figure 20 -GeocIche on .,. ... Nov_7,2014, RenIM. WA ~10,2014 Page 127 Page 128 • • CommonIS b!he CiIy "'_ HoIri1g Exan*1« tom !he TlIIIIl, p.n Woods ~ ~ ReteMlIl TlIIII>y P.n; ~ IUnber lUA13.(1015n , ECf, I'P, CAR; Co!nnwa pof1IiIing 10 tho Nov..., 7, 2013 SEPA c~1It, DrIft Env~ Review c:on.n.. Roport dIIod SopIombot 22, 2014, one! ..".. ... 1111 SIIIdItI prIPIM lor tIIlt project Iftor Nov..., 7, 2014. _,WA c-l0,2014 FigIn 21 • AnoIler fort on the ... FigIn 22 -Another 'fort' on the ... on one of fie INIin ... TlIIIIl, P.n Woods AtlvocM::( Group Odobor 10, 2014 • • C<rnmonts for ... City 01_ Hooring ~ ....... rolllny Pn _ NNocact Qoup RMawlllllllny Port; Projoct_lUAl3-001S72, ECF. I'P . CAR; ~ poIIaIniog ............... 7.2013 &EPA choclllltt. DIIft Env'""-'tll Ravlow CommIIIoo Ropoot doW 81,11 IIbll 22.2014. and .. "I".AlI ..... JIIIPIfOd lor ... pn>foct aftor .... 1IIIbor7.2014. RenIon, WA Odober 10. 2014 FigIn 23 • NdrtI Fort on fie "'1Iong 0lIl cI fie nil FigIn 204 NdrtI bt on the ... on 0lIl cI fie nil T1IIa1y Pn _ fvtoIrat:'/ Grou, 0ct0b0I' 10. 2014 Page 129 Page 130 • • Comments for !he ely of Ronal He.mg exam. tom !he TlIIan, Pari< Woods MK!c&t:y ~ R_1l nr..y Part<; Project IUnbo< LUA1~15n. ECf, PP , CAR; Comments peftliIIIIg 10 1IIt Ncwtmbor 7, 2013 SEPA choctllot, Draft E".,_ Rev_ ~ Rtport _ S'pl'm .... 22, 2014, end SUppli ,.U1 _ pnporod lor this ptojocI_ Nov_7,2014. RenUI, WA Odobor 10, 2014 lilian, Part< Woods MK!c&t:y GIoup Odobor 10.2014 FIgIn 26 -AnoIIer bt 011 one 0/ Ile ..... ------------------------------------~ • • , , Canmenls '" the City Of Renton Hearing ExBminer from lI1e Tiffany Park Woods Atlv«.aey Qoop Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number lUA 13-001572. ECf. PP. CAR; Comments,pertalnlng to the November7. 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environinental Review Committee Report dated September 22. 2014. and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project .fter November 7. 2014. Renton. WA October 10. 2Ot4 It is unclear what the site wasused for In the early 19305 and earlier, however, it was completely cleared in 1936 and It is unclear If agricultural activities wera conducted on the site. Item 8 (h). Has any part of the site been classified as an 'environmentally sensitive' area? If so, speCify. , Yes, There are isolated wetlands located on site. For additional information please review the wetland report preparad by C. Gary Schulz. Also, the site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. This is Incorract, page 2 of the AES document (which Is referenced hi theSEPA checklist) states: Item 8 ---------- The site contains areas that meet City of Renton definitions for Geotechnical Critical Areas. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. ~ any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, ~ any: As part of the preliminary plat process, the project will be ,reviewed in accordance wah the R-B development standards which are compmible with the surrounding property. The site has been historically, and still Is, public property and is used as a green area/parll for recreational purposes. It is estimated that l00s of nearby residents use this area recreationally. The proposed development would permanently 'remove the site from public use and recreation. The Impact fees for parks win not replace the recreational element of the site and will Impact 1005 of local citizens. The exlsting land use Is recreational and site provides habitat functions, surface water controls, and the site Is linked to ,foillsts to the north which are a corridor to the Cedar River. This has not been addressed In ANY document but would be required to be eddressed In an EIS. Item 10 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Tiffany Park Woods Advocecy Group October 10. 2014 Page 131 Page 132 • • Commenls for !he City of Renloo HearIng Examiner fran the Tiffany Park Woods AIMJr:ac:t Group Reserve al TIffany Perl<; ProjecI Number LUAI3.()()1572. ECF. PP. CAR; Commonts perblnlng to the.,November 1. 2013 SEPA chedliist. Draft Environmental Review ~mmItbe Report daled Seplamber 22. 2014. and Supplemental StUdies prepared lor this project eftar November 1, 2014. Renloo. WA Ociober 10. 2014 Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: All future homes within the project will be subject to the City building design standards at the time of building penna review. This Is Incorrect. The site Is currently a 22 acre forest with diverse vegetation and habitat functions. The view , ' Is that of a forest with a relatively dense understory that Includes numerous species of shrubs, herbs, and grasses. The view will be substantially changed when the 18.5 acres of the site Is cleared, not to mention the loss of a major recreational area and the Impacts to vegetation, wildlRe, and surface water in this area (remember there is a deeded drainage easement on the site). ltem12. RECREATION r:~~at deSignated and intoOTIal recreation~1 opportunities are ~; the immediate -I ~icinitY? The subject properly is located within 655 feet of Tiffany ParlI Elementary School which provides some limited recreation opportunities. Also, the site is within 1,000 feet of Tiffany Park which is connected by pedestrien pathways to the Tiffany-Cascade Connector open space and to Cascade Park. Also, abutting the east and south property lines are the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way and Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way tliat provide walking trails used by trye public. 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: Each Building PSOTIit will be required to PilY 8 parlls impact fee of $530. 76 to reduce or control ~atkJnal impacts. This Is Incorrect. As previously stated the site has been used by 1 COs of local citizens for over 3 decades for recreational purposes. Citizens have built trails, forts, and bike tracks, and have made other improvements on this site Including what appears to be a structure. The current estimate Is that 97 lots will be developed, but It Is unclear how $47,768.40 can provide equivalent reCreational uses for the 22 acres of public property used by 10Ds of local citizens that will be removed peOTIanenHy by the proposed development. This should have been assessed and would have been assessed if an EIS were requir8d. Item 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION TIffany Park Woods AIMJr:ac:t Group oaober 10. 2014 ---------------- • • . Commenls for !he City of Renton Hearing Examiner from Ihe Tiffany Park Woods A4vocacy Groop Reserve al Tiffany Park; Project Number lUA 13.(101572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertabllng 10 !he November 7, 2013 SEPA ch8ckllst. Draft Environmental RO'ilew Conunlllee Report datad September 22, 2014, and SUpplemental Studl." prepared for Ihil projeclafter November 7, 2014. a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describ6. No. b. Generally descnbe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, SCientific, or cuffurallmportence known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or oontrol impacts, if any:' Not applicable. Renton. WA October 10, 2014 The SEPA checklist Is Incorrect. As stated above, the site Is a major soliroe 01 recreation in this area and has been for at least 3 decades. There Is geologic scientifIC equipment located on the site (see Figure 20). There have been no studies for state heiitage plants Identified by tha Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WONR) as shown on http11www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/reldeskllistSJplantmk.html. It Is clear that no research was done to detennlneif any sensitive plant spectes or state heritage sHes are located on the sHe, which would be required by an EIS. item 14· Transportation b. Is sue currently served by public transu? if not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. This Incorrect, the April 2014 Trarispo Group document states: The project site ;s currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Rou1es 102 and 155 also operating within the study area. The nearest transu stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive Sf: and 123rd Avenue Sf:, each near the project access points. It Is clear that there are several metro routes In the viclntty of the site. This Is one 01 many errors that are present In the environmental checklist that the Ctty has adopted and has used In the environmental review process to make aDNs-M detennlnation. The use of Incorrect Inlannation and the complexity of having several Iterations 01 the seme documents that also contain errors or do not fully address the site conditions and Ihe environmental Impacts (including ground water) Is inconsistent wtth the purpose of the SEPA review procell$. it is a'pparentthat the Ctty did not want to req~est an EIS lor some reason, however, It is clear that an EIS must be conducted to correctly address all environmental Impacts the proposed project will have. Tiffany Park Woods A4vocacy Groop October 10, 2014 Page 133 .----------------------------- Page 134 • • canmen~ fa' the City of Renlon Hearing examiner fran the TIffany Perk Woods M«x:aq Group Reserve at Tiffany Parte; Project Numbei lUA13-OO1572, ECF. PP. CAR; Commen1I pertaining to the Nov_7. 2013 SEPA ehacklls~ Draft environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014. end SUpplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7. 2014. Renton. WA October 10. 2014 ' 3.0 CONCLUSIONS The SEPA process for the proposed Tiffany Park Woods project Is convoluted. Including two holds, the City is adopting a completely Incorrect SEPA checklist, and the City apparenHy purposely avoided an EIS that Is cailed for (based on ail the required additional studies, that Includa several iterations) byWAC 197·11-600 and RCW 43.21C.031. The City of Renton has adopted Chapter RCW 43.21 C In in the Renton Municipal Code: I Per RMC 4-9·070 (C): The City of Renton adopts as ffs own the policies and objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended (chapter 43.21C RCW). As these comments discuss, the Cfty's review deadline of 14 days to complete a review and comment on ail documents that have been prePared for this SEPA process, including addressing the City's DERCR (and sorting through numerous iterations of the same documents) and to prepare this appeal document is unreasonable. The City has a much time as it wants because it can simply impose another hold, howevar, the citizens do not have this authority. Because of 14 day time limits and a lot of confusion over what process the citizens were required to use to comment on the SEPA related issues (comments or an appeal), the TPWAG could not include detailed comments for ail documents that were reviewed by us and Mr. Neugebauer. Therefore, additional comments , are provided for each report reviewed in PDF format (using Adobe Acrobat 10 or higher) on the CD that accompanies this report. The comments can be viewed by simply clicking on comments. The Included CD Includes ail documents reviewed and a PDF copy of this document. The SEPA process is supposed to be a process that protects the citizens and the environment, however, the citizens comments have been ignored in the past and have gone unaddressed. This Is the last chance the citizens have to have their coni:ems addressed and to insure that the SEPA process Is fully Implemented and accurately reflects the environmental Impacts. The City of Renton apparent did not check the documents it requested for accuracy, consistency, errors, or applicability (such as the September 28, 2012 AES geotechnical report) and the ERC apparently does not include a licensed geologist, engineering geologist, hydrogeologlst. The AES report dea~y states that ft is preliminary, the first paragraph of the report states: this report is not intended to be used !Is tfuj soie iJeotechnlcfil input for eny site , development proposal, and Is not Interided to sen~fy City of Rentonrequireinents for.~ Spilclal $tudy as outlined In Rento[1 Mun!cipal Cqde Section 4-~050 J2. TIffany Pm1< Woods M«x:aq Group October 10. 2014 • • Comments for the Ci~ of Renton Hearing ExamIner from O1e Tiffany Parl< Woods Mv«:act Qoup ReseMI at TIffany Parl<; Project Number LUAl3-001572, ECF. PP. CAR; Commenta pertaining 10 the November 7. 2013 SEPA checklist. Draft Environmental Review CommIttee Report da!ed September 22. 2014. and Supplemen1a1 Studies propared for this project allar November 7. 2014. The DERCR states (page 7) Therefore, staff recommends 8S a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provided [AES} Geotechnical Engineering Raport (Exhibit 7). Mitigation M88Sures: All earthWOtk performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012. The AES report (page 1) states: Within the limtiations of'sCope, schedule. and budgel. 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 report was prepared Renton. WA October 10. 2014 This Indicates that the scope of work was limited by scheduling, but more importanOy budget. Per Mr. Neugebauer (SNR Company), AES was not provided the scheduling and budget to conduct the level of study warranted for this site, especially when the wetland specialist(s) indicate that the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface. This warrants a significantly enhanced study for slope stability, impacts to ground water quality, Impacts to the developed homes, and Impacts to all unlined stOnT! water facilities on the site. Additionally, n the ground water tabie is located at or within 7 Inches of the ground surface, It is very likely that a buried stOnT! water detention vault will float and erupt from the ground without adequate anchoring. Had AES had the budget and time, It would have noted the bent trees, hummocky ground surface end would have Identified the recessional outwash deposits that are typically present up to 40 inch9s below the ground surface and that the contact of the recessional outwash deposits and the glacial till Is creating a potential rupture surface, especially when this contact Is prone to relatively high amounts of unsaturated zone preferential flow. This can lead to unstable slopes especially ff the toe of the slope is disturbed as it has been on the site, which Is apparently leading to near surface creep and silallow slumping. There are numerous problems with the SEPA process for this project and It Is clear that the City should have required an EIS when It placed the project on hold on December 16, 2013. Instead, the City created a process that w~ fragmented which Impacted citizen input and made the review process very difficult. Additionally; by refusing to acknowledge that the proposed project does pose signiflcent environmental Impacts; Including impacts to existing recreational uses of thil site (for at least 3 decades), which was NEVER addressed In any document suggests a unbiased, thorough, scientifIC and social rev.iew was NOT conducted. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10. 2014 Page 135 • • ConmenIS , .. the City of Renton HearIng ExamIner frlIm the Tiffany Park Woods Miocaf:t GIllUp ReseMI at TIffanyPark;,Projed Number,LUAI3-OO1Sn. ECf. PP. CAR; Commen1s pertaInIng to the November 7, 2013 $EPA checklist, Draft Envlronmemal Revk.,Commltteo'Report daled September 22. 2014, and Supplemen1al, StUdI .. prejlared for this project after November 7. 2014, Rerton. WA 0cI0ber 10. 2014" It Is clearthat the City should have requested that an EIS be conducted and that all supporting documentation must be thorough, unbiased, consistent, and current. Addnionally, for projects this complex and with this much documentation, the citizens must, be provided at least 30 days review time which Is consistent with SEPA protocols in RCW 43.21C which the city of Renton has adopted Into ns code. The TPWAG is submnting this appeal document as a request to the Hearing Examiner to deny the City's Page 136 request for a DNS-M and to require the City to follow the correct protocols for SEPA studies and documentation for complex sHes where Significant environmental Impacts are present (the City has acknowledged this by placing two holds on the project and requesting more Information, but the City did not focus on many of the SEPA requirements and all proposed mntgation pertains to construction activities lether than addressing environmental Impacts. It Is clear that the existing documents, and this document support the nlied for an EIS and that more citizen review time Is necessary for citizen review time and commenting. Sincerely, , TIFFANY PARK WOODS ADVOCACY GROUP lb ClJb. ~ J2q~ Renate Beedon President SNRCOMPANY 0tl~ Steven F. Neugebauer Principal hydrogeologlstlenglneering geologist Tiffany Park Woods Miocaf:t G"",p Octoberl0.2014 D~ash . O'CheckNo. •• CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division laSS Sou~ GradtWay Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 -,._., -• 2151 ·Date ' who 114 ",\:~ I' . 'j , , , P <;opy Fee 0 NotarySeiVice q S 1St) ~ppeal Fee, 0 __ ~--:---,-,--:.,...,....,...-..,..- Description: ~R~e~5I.!:eL.t'l1L!1lb:...'.!:Ltj,:::::i_TiLl' -1, ~=tl. '~J~ld4-' *'P:.1.!Ma:.' !:::k.:""'..;:lSLt::t+fAq, ~.I..,{jf:.lh ~1'1l1l.c"f.lu'~~{,--_,--_ I UA.-/3.~t!d 1572 "=to \-\e.X '. . I ' , I . Denis Law May_or . ' •••••• Sept~mber 25,.2014 .·Community & Economic Development Department : C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator · Washington Sta'te Department ofEcology .. Environmentai Review Section .• PO Box 47703'. . OI\If1.lpia, WA98504,7703' Subject: .. ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith. is a copy of the Environmental Determination forthe following" 'pr~ject reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) on September 22, .2014: . SEPA DETERMINATION:' Determination of Non-Significance M'itigated (DNSM) . PROJECT NAME: The'Reserve 'at Tiffany Pa'rk : LUA13-001572, ~CF,PP CAR PROJECT.NUMBER: . 'Appeals of the environmental determi'nation must be filed in writing ail or before 5:00. p.m. on October 10, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Exa'minet; City' · of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA·98057; Appeals to,the Examiner are . governed by RMC 4cgjlOand informationregardirig the appeal process may be · obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510 .. ' Please refer ~o Jhe enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete . d.etails. If you have questions, please call meat (425) 430-7219. · For the Environmental Review Committee; ·tJ···::·~· .............. . .......... : ....•... '.,: ....... ~ .. , , , ,,' ..- -' -.' . . , ,'" . . . . RocaleTimmons . Senior planner Enclosure . cc: King County wast~water Treat.m·ent Division' : -, . Boyd Powers,' Department of Natural Resources Karen wai,ter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot.lndian Tribe Melissa Calvert; Mu~kleshoot Cul~ural Resources program' Gretchen Kaehler, 'Offic~ of Archaeolo.gy &-Historic'P.r~servation , . Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region· Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office . US Army Corp. ~f ~ngi~eers Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton;·Washingion.980S7 .' rentonwa.gov· . . . ". . ." , . Denis Law "". Ma~or September 25, 2014 Communiiy&Econa"mic Development Department" " .. "C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator" " Wayne Potter "Ncivastar Dev Inc ." 18215 nnd AveS Ke~t,WA" 98032 SUBJECT: "ENVIRONMENTAL (~EPA) THRESHOLD DEtERMINATION """ ""The Reserve atTiffanyPark~13-0001572,ECF, PI', CAR." . Dear Mr. Potter: This letter is. written on behalf of the' Environment 'a I Review Committee (ERC)toa'dvise , "'you th"atthey.have c6mpl~tedtheir review of the s~biect pr~ject and have issueda ", thre~ho'id Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with:Mitigation Measures; "Please refer to the enclosed ERe Report, for a list ofthe Mitigation Measures." " . ., , ."...".. Appeals of the envir~nmentaldetermiriation,mustbe filed in writing on or before 5:00, " p.m. ori Octobe~,10,20i4, together withtherequired fee ~ith: Heari~g Examiner, City " of Rentcin,"1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA98057. Appeals to the Examiner are "," governed'byRMC4'8;UO and info'rmation regardingthe appeal process maYbe , "" " " ,obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510." " ", , . " ~ -'., . " , " Ifthe EnvironmentaIDetermination"isappe'aled, a public hearing date will be' set arid all ", parties notified. " "" "' " , " Also, apublich~aring has beeri scheduled by the HearirigExamin~r. in,the Council " Chambers on theseve~thfloorofCitYHall on Octooer 21, 2014 at 9:00arri to. consider "" 'the preliminary Plat." Theapplica~t or representative(s) of the applicant is 'required to"" "be present at the publiC hearing: Acopy of the staff recomrriendation will be niailedto , you prior to the hearing, IUhe, Environment.al Deterrninationis appealed'the appe,!1 will be heard as part of this public hearing. ' ." . " ,If you have any further questioris, please call me at (425 )430-7219: . " " .- Renton City Hall • lOSS South Grady Way ~ R';nton, Washin'gton 98057 • rentonwa,gov"' -_. • J " • . .' . ", .' -;. . E~ror! Referenc~ s~urce·n.n~~ Page2012, " ' September 24, ,2014 For the Environmental ReviewCormnittee, RocaleTimmons " Senior Planner .' :Enc!osure cc. ' 'Renton School'qi,trict / Ow':,,;r(,) Henley USA LLC / Applicant .' party(i';,) ofR~cord,. ' " " " , Document88 : , , .. : ,. . ',' , " "., . Denis Law', Mayor • , Septembe'r 25, 2014, ' Parties of Record Various Community & Economic Development Dep~rtment , C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator, Subject: Environmental 'SEPA' Review Report Availability" ,,' R~serv~ at Tiffany Park, lIJA13-001S72, ECF, PP; CAR 'Dear Parties of Record:' , The Citycif Renton En,vironrriental Review Committee (ERe) has determined th~tthe , proposed act,ion has probable significant impacts that can be mitigated'through 'mitigation measures. ,The ERCCommitteeissued a Determination ot'Non Significance- 'Mitigated (I)NS-M) on September 22,20111 (see attached notice).' • .'. • ••..•. '0 .'. The Environmental Review Committee Report, including exhibits and public comment , letters, is available:' . .' • ' Electronically 'on line at the City of Renton !Nebsite (www.rentonwa,gov) , • 'To b~ 'viewed at theCityClerk's,office on the 7'h floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 S6uth Grady Way, betwee~8am'and 4 pm, Askfor the project file by the'" project number LUA13 c001572 ' • Purcha~ed fo~a c~pying charge of$0.15,per page, The estimated cost for the staff rep~rt.is $6.60, plus a hanaling and postage cost of $2.0'0 (thi~ cost is subject tochange if document~ are added) , ," " Please contact.me at (425) 430-7219 or roca!E!t@comcast.netifyou have any questions, '. .' , '. 'Sincer~eIY' "",' ',', , ~ , , ' , , '~" ,Ro Ie Tim,mons', :, ' 'Senior Planner " '-: • • OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OFA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIfY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: OESCRIPTlON: The Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR SE lSth St and 124th PI THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMmED A PROPOSAL REQUESTING SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 97·LOT SUBDIVISION (96 LOTS WITH A 30% TREE RETENTION ALTERNATIVE PLAN). THE 21.66 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-S DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE (R-8) ZONING CLASSIFICATION. A SMALL PORTION OF THE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-4 ZONING CLASSIFICATION. ALL PROPOSED lOTS WOUlD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE R·B ZONING ClASSIFICATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE DEAD END OF SE 18TH 5T BORDERED BY THE CEDAR RIVER PIPELINE ALONG THE'SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND MERCER ISLAND PIPELINE ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THE 96 LOTS WOULD RESULT IN A DENSITY NO MORE THAN 5.70 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. LOT SIZES WOULD RANGE FROM 4,500 SQUARE FEET TO 8,456 SQUARE FEET WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 5,399 SQUARE FEET. IN ADDITION TO THE 97(96) LOTS, 13 TRACTS ARE PROPOSED FOR SENSITIVE AREAS, TREE RETENTION, STORM DRAINAGE, ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, AND OPEN SPACE INCLUDING AN (EXISTING) VEGETATED BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY 1O-FEET IN WIDTH. ACCESS TO THE SITE WOULD BE GAINED FROM SE 18Tli ST WITH SECONDARY ACCESS EXTENDED FROM 124ni PLACE SE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITH 1,305 SIGNIFICANT TREES AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO RETAIN 147 TREES (188 TREES WITH A 30% TREE RETENTION ALTERNATIVE PLAN). THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A WETLAND REPORT, DRAINAGE REPORT, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY, ARBORIST REPORT, HABITAT DATA REPORT, AND INDEPENDENT SECONDARY STUDIES FOR TRANSPORTATION AND WETLANDS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION. THE SITE CONTAINS THREE CATEGORY 2 WETLANDS (WETLANDS A, C, AND. D) AND TWO CATEGORY 3 WETLANDS (WETLAND B AND E). THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CRITICAL AREA EXEMPTION FOR THE EXTENSION OF SE 18TH ST THROUGH PORTIONS OF THE BUFFER ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND E. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERe) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATEO THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the enVironmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON OCTOBER 21, 2014 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIOER 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 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE , -MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Henley USA LLC Tiffany Park Reserve PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted a proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision (96 lots with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The 21.66 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 96 lots would result in a density no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10-feet in width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees (188 trees with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, Habitat Data Report, and Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PROJECT LOCATION: SE 181h St and 1241h St LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 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. ,-----c---------------------------• DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: September 26, 2014 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 SIGNATURES: q/zz/Jy-?)G. VI r I Mark Peterson, Administrator Date Fire & Emergency Services =-Te-'?=-ry.::.H.,.,.~-a-sh:-:i-y~-m-a-, -:-A-:-dm---:-inC-is-tr-at-o-r ____ q~J I Y w~ ~~~~;;:ttr Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Economic Development ~ hZ/Iv ~ Date • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR APPLICANT: Henley USA LLC PROJECT NAME: The Reserve at Tiffany Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The. applicant has submitted a proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision (96 lots with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The 21.66 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 96 lots would result in a density no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10-feet in width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees (188 trees with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, Habitat Data Report, and Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: SE 18 th St and 124th Place The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division • • MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28,2012. 2. The final drainage report shall include a more detailed downstream analysis. Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2.1, a Level 2 downstream analysis for 14 mile from the project site is required. The applicant should note that Level 3 flow control could be required as part ofthe Level 2 downstream analysis. A revised final drainage report and associated plans, based on the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton, is required to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised Drainage Report. 3. The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the inspection reports. 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, which will address vermin abatement during project grading and site improvements. The vermin abatement mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply and implement any recommended mitigation according to an approved plan. 6. A minimum is-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided. The is-feet would allow for the offset of tree planting, as opposed to a linear tree line, which would create a more natural buffer in keeping with the existing character of the site. Such landscaping or landscape plus fencing shall be, at minimum, 6-feet high at maturity and at least 50% sight-obscuring. Existing mature trees are located within this 15 foot buffer should be maintain and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborist that such tree is dead, diseased, or dangerous. ERe Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 5 • • 7. The applicant shall install a STOP sign with a stopline in thermoplastic on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave SE to SE lSth St in order to address the sight distance concerns at this intersection prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. S. The applicant shall submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE lSSth St intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction permits. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised TIA. 9. The applicant shall install directional information sign age (white letters on green background) at S Puget Drive and 116th Ave SE facing west prior to Final Plat approval. The signs shall read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. 10. An additional CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) warning sign with a 15MPH advisory speed shall be installed by the applicant on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th St (east of Beacon Way SE). The final design is subject to final construction permit review 'prior to construction permit issuance. 11. The applicant shall provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE lSth St and Lake Youngs Way SE prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. ERe Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 5 • ADVISORY NOTES: Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwis.e approved by the Development Services Division. 2. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Water 1. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone and static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. See city water drawings W-0256, W-OS08 and W-0469. Connection to the 8-inch main in SE 19th Court will require crossing the City of Seattle pipeline. A permit from Seattle Public Utilities will be required. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for %-inch or l-inch water meter install is $2809.00. 3. Fee for a %-inch meter drop in by the city is $ 400.00. Fee for a l-inch meter drop in by the city is $ 460.00. 4. Extension of a new 8-inch water main and new hydrants within the plat will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. Existing hydrants counted as fire protection shall be retrofitted with storz fittings if not already in place. 6. Plat shall provide separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat.The development is subject to applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and water meter installation fees based on the number and size ofthe meters for domestic, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The current SDC fee for a 1" domestic water meter is $2,809.00. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. Sanitary Sewer 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18th Street. Extension of an 8-inch sewer main will be required onsite. It is shown on the plans. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a %-inch water orl-inch meter install is $2,033.00. 3. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Surface Water 1. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. Several of the lots along the existing wetlands will discharge roof runoff into the wetland areas to maintain wetland hydrology. 2. A geotechnical report, dated September 28, 2012 was submitted by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. The field study included 12 exploration pits on the 21.6 acre site. The site is underlain at shallow depth by lodgement till sediments. For drainage purposes, this medium dense, moist, fine sand with silt is not a suitable for infiltration. ERe Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 5 • • 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required. A Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation/Street 1. Street lighting is required on public street frontages 2. All public streets and private roads must have 0.5 feet wide vertical curb. 3. Pavement thickness must follow city of Renton standards. 4. Pedestrian connectivity must be provided with no missing portions. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. Fire 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including S-inch storz fittings. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 2S-feet inside and 4S-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding lS0-feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required. landscape islands are not allowed in the cul- de-sacs. General Comments 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. ERe Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 of 5 ,------------------------------------------ DEPARTMENT OF COMMlIITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOP]MNT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: September 22, 2014 Project Nome: Reserve at Tiffany Park Project Number: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Owner: Renton School District; 300 SW ]'h St; Renton, WA 98055 Applicant: Henley USA LLC, 11100 Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004 Contact: Novastar Dev I,nc,; Wayne Potter; 18215 72 0d Ave 5; Kent, WA 98032 Praject Lacation: SE 18th St and 124th Place Project Summary: The applicant has submitted a proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision (96 lots with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The 21.66 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 96 lots would result in a density no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary lO-feet in width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees (188 trees with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, Habitat Data Report, and Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Site Area.: 21.66 acres STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non- RECOMMENDATI Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M); ON: Project Location Map ERCReport City of Renton Department of community.onomiC Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND • Environmental Review Committee Report WA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 2 of 26 The applicant requested SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 98-lot subdivision on November 14, 2013. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on November 25, 2013. During our review, staff determined additional information was necessary in order to proceed. On December 16, 2013 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a Habitat Data Report and Independent Secondary Reviews of the provided Critical Area/Wetland Report and Traffic Study. While a revised plat plan was submitted to the City on March 3, 2014 the applicant didn't submit all necessary documentation to have the project taken off hold until July 16, 2014. The March 3, 2014 plat plan/submittal package reflected a change from a proposed detention pond to a drainage vault, a revised lot layout/internal circulation pattern, and a vegetated buffer along portions of the perimeter of the site. The July 16, 2014 proposal included a request for SEPA Environmental Review, Preliminary Plat, and Critical Area Exemption for a 97-lot subdivision (Exhibit 2). However, during our review of the July 16, 2014 plat, staff determined additional information was necessary in order to proceed. On August 20, 2014 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a revised Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report and Tree Retention Plan which required the retention of at least 30% of the significant trees on site. The applicant submitted all necessary documentation and on September 5, 2014 the project was taken off hold. Submittals included an Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan demonstrating that the retention of at least 30% of the Significant trees on site would result in the loss of one lot for a total of 96 lots (Exhibit 11). The subject site is situated at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line and consists of four tax parcels (#212304-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9154, and 212305-9061). The 21.66 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site is located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The site is entirely surrounded by existing single family residences. The site is unique in shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first is located in the northwest corner of the site at the dead-end of SE 18th St. The second· road stub is located to the southwest of the site on the southern side of the Cedar River Pipeline at the dead-end of 124th Place SE. The applicant is proposing to extend these road stubs into the site in order to provide public access and circulation. Internal residential access streets are proposed to provide access to each lot. The proposed 97 lots, or the 96 lot alternative, would result in a density of 5.70 dwelling units per acre or less. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the proposed single family lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10-feet in width. The total area for all sensitive areas and native/passive open space proposed to be provided is 5.28 acres, approximately 24.4% of the site. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and a series of existing pedestrian trails. The July 16, 2014 submittal indicated the applicant proposed to retain 147 trees (Exhibit 3). However, the ERe Report City of Renton Department of Community TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 Development Environmental Review Committee Report Page 3 of 26 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, submitted on August 29, 2014 depicted the retention of 188 trees (Exhibit 11). Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revised submittal materials, staff utilized the plat plan dated July 16, 2014 (Exhibit 2) to base its Environmental analysis. The applicant has submitted the following reports for review and analysis in support of the July 16, 2014 plat plan: Wetland Report (Exhibit 5), Drainage Report (Exhibit 8), Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 9), Geotechnical Engineering study (Exhibit 7), Tree Protection/Arborist Report (Exhibit 4), and Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6). Additionally the following reports have been provided by the applicant for review and analysis: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 11), Independent Secondary Review -Traffic (Exhibit 13), Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (Exhibit 14), Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (Exhibit 15), Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandums (Exhibit 16 and 17). The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant is proposing wetland buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,000 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of approximately 48,000 square feet. The applicant is also requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through a small portion of the buffer associated with Wetland E. The subject site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area and contains sensitive slopes. The applicant is proposing excavation estimated at 70,000 cubic yards. The on-site stripping is anticipated to be 22,000 cubic yards which would either be redistributed on site or exported off site if the soils cannot be used. The subject property is currently owned by the Renton School District. In 2013 the Renton School District approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the applicant (Henley USA, LLC) to sell the subject site. The agreement authorizes the applicant to assess the property's suitability for the proposed development and obtain the necessary approvals in compliance with the City of Renton development regulations. It should be noted two community meetings, regarding the proposed project, have been held at Tiffany Park Elementary. The first meeting, on February 6, 2014, was organized and facilitated by community members. City staff attended the first meeting as a guest on the agenda and provided information on the public process. The second meeting was organized and facilitated by the City on September 9, 2014. Topics of discussion included a project overview, a description of the public process, and provided information on how to participate in the public process. Staff received several public comment letters/emails (Exhibit 10.0 -10.70). To address public comments the following report contains analysis related to the following impacts: Earth/Soils, Wetlands, Stormwater, Goundwater, Plants, Wildlife, Noise, Aesthetics, and Transportation. Additional environmental analysis and findings for the topics above will also be included in staff's recommendation to the City's Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary Plat (hearing tentatively scheduled for October 21, 2014). Non-SEPA concerns raised by public will only be addressed as part of staff's recommendation to the City's Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary Plat and are not included in this report. Non-SEPA concerns include, but are not limited to the following: subdivision regulations, zoning, permitted uses, density, public notice, ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 Development Environmental Review Committee Report CAR Page 4 of 26 construction mitigation/traffic control, landscaping, fencing, school capacity, access, parking, retaining walls, lot standards/dimensions, encroachments, setbacks, utilities, public services, and home sizes. I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012. 2. The final drainage report shall include a more detailed downstream analysis. Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2.1, a Level 2 downstream analysis for}.\ mile from the project site is required. The applicant should note that Level 3 flow control could be required as part of the Level 2 downstream analysis. A revised final drainage report and associated plans, based on the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton, is required to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised Drainage Report. 3. The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the inspection reports. 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, which will address vermin abatement during project grading and site improvements. The vermin abatement mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply and implement any recommended mitigation according to an approved plan. ERCReport City oj Renton Department oj Community _anomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK .. Environmental Rev~ew Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Report of September 22, 2014 Page 5 of 26 6. A minimum 1S-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided. The 1S-feet would allow for the offset of tree planting, as opposed to a linear tree line, which would create a more natural buffer in keeping with the existing character of the site. Such landscaping or landscape plus fencing shall be, at minimum, 6-feet high at maturity and at least SO% sight-obscuring. Existing mature trees are located within this 1S foot buffer should be maintain and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborist that such tree is dead, diseased, or dangerous. 7. The applicant shall install a STOP sign with a stopline in thermoplastic on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave SE to SE 18th St in order to address the sight distance concerns at this intersection prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE 158th St intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction permits. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised TIA. 9. The applicant shall install directional information signage (white letters on green background) at S Puget Drive and 116th Ave SE facing west prior to Final Plat approval. The signs shall read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. 10. An additional CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) warning sign with a lSMPH advisory speed shall be installed by the applicant on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th St (east of Beacon Way SE). The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. 11. The applicant shall provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18 th St and Lake Youngs Way SE prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit S Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 ERCReport ERC Report Preliminary Plat Plan (dated July 16, 2014) Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (dated July 16, 2014) Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3, 2014) Habitat Assessment (dated January 16, 2014) Geotechnical Report (dated September 28, 2012) Drainage Report (dated February 24,2014) Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014) Public Comment Letters: 10.1-10.70 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) .------------------------------------------------------------ City of Renton Department oj community.anomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13·001572, ECF, PP, CAR Report of September 22, 2014 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (April 3,,2014) Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9,2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated February 11, 2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated June 12, 2014) Landscape Plan (dated July 16, 2014) D. Environmentallmpacts Page 6 of 26 The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impocts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site topography can best be characterized as sloping down to the west with gentle slope inclinations with a total vertical relief of 50 feet. The site generally slopes from east to west from elevation 456 to 398. The project site has an average slope between 10% and 15% with a small isolated area containing 25% slopes. A preliminary grading plan was prepared for the proposal which depicts mass grading of the site (outside of protected critical areas) with cuts and fills balanced onsite estimated at 70,000 cubic yards. The on-site stripping is anticipated to be 22,000 cubic yards which would either be redistributed on site or exported off site if it cannot be used. Following construction it is anticipated the proposal would result in an impervious cover of approximately 61%. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, dated September 28, 2012 (Exhibit 7). The report states that there are no geotechnical conditions on site that would preclude the proposed development. A surficial layer of organic topsoil was encountered at each of the exploration pits ranging from 1 to 1.9 feet. Due to their high-organic content, the topsoil is not considered suitable for foundation, roadway, slab-on-grade floor support, or structural fill. The entire site is underlain by Vashon lodgment till (medium dense to very dense, silty sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders). lodgement till is favorable for support of foundations, floor slabs, and paving, with proper preparation. For drainage purposes, this medium dense, moist, fine sand with silt is not a suitable for infiltration. Groundwater seepage was encountered at approximately 10 feet. The report states that perched groundwater conditions are likely to develop seasonally. The report also states that the risk for liquefaction to occur at the site during an earthquake is negligible. Finally, the site is located approximately 250 feet east of a moderate Coal Mine Hazard. No special coal mine impact study is required unless located with 50 feet of a mapped coal mine hazard. ERCReport City of Renton Department of communiAonomic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 o Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 7 of 26 The geotechnical report does include specific recommendations in order to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts including: site preparation, temporary cut slopes, site disturbance. Winter construction, structural fill, foundations, pavement recommendations. Therefore, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Engineering Report (Exhibit 7). Soil erosion is possible during improvements especially if conducted in the wet season. The applicant will be required to design a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the current 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements. A number of retaining walls are proposed to be constructed on site as part of the grading proposal and will be further reviewed as part staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary Plat. Mitigation Measures: 1. All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: Due to the presence of critical areas the applicant completed a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc., dated October 30, 2013. The applicant submitted a revised Wetland Determination in response to revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter, dated February 28, 2014. The revised Wetland Determination replaced the original wetland determination. Both reports identified four wetlands on the subject site (Wetlands A-D). Based on public comments received (Exhibit 10), staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by Otak (Exhibit 14). The memo outlined several requests for information before the secondary review could be completed, including: reflagging, additional survey information, associated changes to the mitigation plan, and the inclusion of temporary impacts. On May 7, 2014 a meeting was held on site, attended by representatives of the City, the project applicant (Henley USA), the project contact (Barghausen), the applicant's wetland specialists (Gary Schulz and Soundview Consultants), and Otak. Following the completion of recommendations in the Otak memo (Exhibit 14) and the meeting held on site, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response on June 3, 2014 (Exhibit 5). The Revised Wetland Determination identified a 5th wetland (Wetland E) and address ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community anomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 .Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Page 8 of 26 those concerns raised by Otak in their memo, dated April 3, 2014. On July 9, 2014 a supplemental independent secondary wetland review, of the Revised Wetland Determination, was provided to the City by Otak (Exhibit 15). The memo generally outlined concurrence with the June 3, 2014 Revised Wetland Determination. The revised wetland buffer averaging proposal for Wetlands A, B, C, and D were generally supported (additional comments below) as was the identification and support of a needed Critical Area Exemption for Wetland E (see additional comments below). Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revised submittal materials, Staff utilized the Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3, 2014) in support of the plat plan dated July 16, 2014 to base its analysis. The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres) and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 acres). Tiffanv Park Wetland Characteristics Wetland Size •. Category Buffer' Proposed Impact to Buffer " A 3,326 SF 2 50 2,825 SF (Temporary) 3,740 SF (Averaged wi 35,583 SF of additional buffer) B 505 SF 3 25 2,644 SF (Averaged wi 11,890 SF of additional buffer for the Wetland B/C complex) C 5,349 SF 2 50 N/A D 3,381 SF 2 50 1,203 (Temporary) 1,627 SF (Averaged wi 2,589 SF of additional buffer) E 665 SF 3 25 14 SF (Permanent) Wetland A: Wetland A is a 3,326 square foot wetland located on the north side of the subject property. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, is seasonally flooded and is classified as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. Wetland B: Wetland B is a small 505 square foot wetland located on the south side of the subject property. It is likely this wetland has groundwater influence and seasonal surface water flows from surrounding upland. The report states the wetland is predominately vegetated with shrubs and is classified as a Category 3 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 3 wetlands have a standard buffer of 25 feet. Wetland C: Wetland C is a 5,349 square foot wetland located just east of Wetland B and is the largest wetland on site. Wetland C is forested and has a dense shrub cover. It is likely this wetland is also supported by groundwater influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, is seasonally flooded and is classified as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. ERCReport City of Renton Department of community.onomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK __ Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Report of September 22, 2014 Page 9 of 26 Wetland D: Wetland D is a small 3,381 square foot wetland located adjacent to the Mercer Island pipeline. Wetland D has a dense shrub cover. It is likely this wetland is also supported by groundwater influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, is seasonally flooded and is classified as a Category 2 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 2 wetlands have a standard buffer of 50 feet. Wetland E: Wetland E is a small 665 square foot wetland located adjacent to SE 18th St. Wetland E has sparse shrub cover. It is also likely this wetland is supported by groundwater influence and rainfall runoff. The report states the wetland is palustrine, scrub-shrub, is seasonally flooded and is classified as a Category 3 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-050 Category 3 wetlands have a standard buffer of 25 feet. Wetland Buffer Averaging: The applicant has proposed buffer averaging for Wetlands A, C, and D. It should be noted Wetland B is located within the 50-foot buffer of Wetland C and as a result the proposed buffer averaging is combined to compensate for buffer reduction. Overall the applicant is proposing wetland buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,000 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of approximately 48,000 square feet. Pursuant to RMC, buffer width averaging may be allowed by the reviewing official 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 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. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than 50% of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet wide. The applicant's Revised Wetland Determination, generally concurred by the Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review, concluded the wetland buffers proposed for buffer reduction through averaging would have the physical characteristics that can protect water quality and wetland hydrologic functions including flood storage (Exhibits 5 and 15 respectively). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. The factors that can increase or provide sediment and pollutant removal the report states would remain in the reduced buffer areas. The subject wetlands would be preserved and have the opportunity to improve water quality and reduce flooding and erosion with the additional of buffer area. Additionally, the requested buffer reductions are no greater than 50% of the standard buffer widths, with a majority of the buffer reductions at approximately 36%. Finally, none of the standard 50-foot buffers would be reduced to the minimum buffer setback of 25 feet. Staff has reviewed the revised wetland buffer averaging proposal for Wetlands A, B, C, and D, and agrees that the proposal meets all requirements in RMC 4-3-M.6.f. However, as indicated in the ERCReport City oj Renton Department of community.onomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 o Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 10 of 26 Supplemental Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 15), there does not appear to be buffer adjustments on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C to take into account the "lock + load walls" proposed. It appears that portions of the walls may fall within the proposed final buffer edges. If this is the case, the plans should be revised to avoid these impacts, or to accurately show the permanent buffer impacts. Staff will be recommending a condition of Preliminary Plat approval to address this concern. Temporary Wetland Buffer Impacts: As a part of the project's construction temporary wetland impacts are anticipated. These impacts would result in 3,393 square feet of impacted area. There are two locations on the project site where temporary buffer impacts could occur during lot and roadway construction activities. The larger area is along the north boundary of proposed Lots 1 through 6. Due to the topography in this area excavation is proposed in order to create building pads for residential.lots. The estimated area of buffer disturbance is anticipated to be 2,825 square feet with portions of the disturbance not located within the code required 50-foot buffer but within the proposed enhanced buffer. The second location of potential temporary buffer impact is proposed for a retaining wall adjacent to the buffer of Wetland D. The impact area shown is about 8 feet wide and 150 feet in length. The area for this temporary impact is 1,203 square feet with approximately Y, of the area not located within the code required 50-foot buffer and is located within the proposed enhanced buffer. The applicant is proposing mitigation for temporary impacts to buffers with restoration including new tree and shrub plantings designed to replace site-specific plant community habitat. Staff has reviewed the proposed temporary wetland buffer impacts, along with the Supplemental Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 15) and has determined that the Revised Wetland Determination report (Exhibit 5) sufficiently discusses and shows temporary impacts to wetland buffers. Staff will be recommending as a condition of Preliminary Plat approval, potential temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities will be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and planting of native species. Anticipated conditions of Preliminary Plat approval are expected to bring the impacted areas to similar or better conditions than what existed prior to construction. Prior to construction, specific vegetation in the temporary buffer impact areas are required to be submitted and approved in order to ensure appropriate vegetation is planted in the restoration areas. Critical Area Exemption: The revised Wetland Determi.nation report (Exhibit 5) discusses a permanent buffer impact to Wetland E. The Tiffany Park project will require the extension of SE 18th St. The City's Complete Street Standards (RMC 4-6-060) would require the extension to be 1.5 feet wider than the existing right-of-way. In order to construct the new portion of SE 18th St to current standards a very minor portion of Wetland E buffer would be impacted. The impact totals 14 square feet of new buffer impact and results in a wetland buffer width of less than 25 feet. Wetland E's standard 25-foot buffer has been impacted (cleared, graded, and paved) from the past construction of SE 18th St and the adjacent sidewalk. Existing buffer impact is estimated to be approximately 219 square feet. ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community anomiC ~e~elopment RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report WA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 11 of 26 The Renton Municipal Code has an exemption allowance for extensions of a public street to impact wetland buffers. The project would fall under the Specific Exemptions-Critical Areas and Buffers, which states "the construction of new trails, streets, roads, rights-of-way and associated appurtenances, facilities and utilities where no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed other than the minimum alteration and/or fill needed ... " (RMC 4-3-050C.5.e.ii). Whiles staff received several comments requesting the denial of the requested exemption, the proposed area of new impact to the Wetland E buffer is very small, and is necessary for construction of the SE 18th St extension. Full street improvements,along SE 18th St would assist in providing much needed pedestrian connectivity. Therefore, staff will likely be making a Preliminary Plat recommendation to the Hearing Examiner in support of the requested Critical Area Exemption. along with a request for enhancement of other critical areas on site. Conditions associated with Preliminary Plat approval will likely include wetland sign age and fencing and review and approval of a final wetland mitigation plan. In order to preserve and protect the wetlands and associated buffers the applicant will be required, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over the parts of the site encompassing wetlands and buffer areas. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: Not applicable b. Storm Water Impacts: The site is located within the mainstem subarea of the Cedar River Basin. The site receives drainage from properties to the north. In the pre-developed condition all downstream drainage currently flows off site onto the properties immediately adjacent to the west or onto SE 18th St where it is collected by the existing stormwater conveyance system. Following the existing closed conveyance system to Tiffany Park Elementary School the runoff is collected by a 60-inch trunk line and ultimately conveyed northwest to Ginger Creek. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Bargharusen, dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). The proposed subdivision is subject to full drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. This project would not discharge to any critical areas or onto adjacent properties as it would to tie into an existing storm drain conveyance system downstream of the detention and water quality system. A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipe would be constructed in the roadways to collect drainage from all impervious surfaces and lots on site and convey to the new drainage facility. The drainage facility located in Tract A is a detention vault sized for Level 2 Flow Control. Based on Level 2 detention vault sizing calculations, the vault volume required is 245,850 cubic feet. Water quality would be met with the use of a Storm Filter for this project. In order to ERCReport City oj Renton Department oj community.anomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-00157Z, ECF, PP, CAR Page 12 of 26 provide the necessary depth within the detention facility a new conveyance system will be constructed within SE 18th St and connect to the existing storm line at the intersection of SE Lake Youngs Way. Stormwater would be discharged into a new 18-inch storm pipe to be constructed in SE 18th St approximately 600 feet west of the property boundary where it will connect to an existing storm line in Lake Youngs Way SE. Upon discharging to the existing storm system at Lake Youngs Way SE the existing 18-inch concrete pipe turns south and conveys stormwater to the entrance of Tiffany Park. Upstream of the site to the northeast is the existing Mercer Island Pipeline. This pipeline is approximately 60 feet wide. The pipeline is fully cleared with grass overgrowth and is slightly crowned along the center of the right-of-way for its full length adjacent to the project site. Due to the inability to efficiently bypass the 30-foot-wide portion that flows onto the project site, it is proposed that this region of runoff be collected and routed to the on-site drainage facility. As such, this area is being considered as part ofthe pre-developed site and is not part of the upstream basin. 1 There is also an upstream basin to the east of the Mercer Island Pipe Line that would be bypassed through the site and around the on site drainage facilities. This basin consists of runoff from a portion of 129th Place SE and the 19th Ct SE cul-de-sac along with the surrounding homes. Runoff from this basin is collected and routed by a series of catch basins and storm pipes to an existing ditch along the east side of the pipeline. A 12-inch culvert crosses the Mercer Island Pipe Line and discharges runoff into the onsite Wetland "D". Runoff from this upstream basin and from Wetland "D" would be collected in a separate conveyance system and routed through the site. The report states that the project should not pose significant negative impacts to the downstream drainage course. The proposed Level 2 Flow Control would restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 50% of the pre-developed site and is proposed to provide adequate mitigation to prevent any future drainage complaints as a result of this proposed site development. Staff received comments from surrounding property owners and the Tribes, with respect to drainage concerns for the proposal and areas downstream (Exhibit 10). Downstream capacity issues have been observed and the area is considered a nuisance necessitating City stormwater maintenance work. It is unclear, with a Level 1 downstream analysis, if the proposed project would exacerbate the downstream capacity issues. Therefore, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the final drainage report include a more detailed downstream analysis. Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2.1, a Level 2 downstream analysis for Y. mile from the project site is required. The applicant should note that Level 3 flow control could be required as part of the Level 2 downstream analysis. A revised final drainage report and associated plans, based on the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton, is required to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, ~nd implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised Drainage Report. Mitigation Measures: 1. The final drainage report shall include a more detailed downstream analysis. Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2.1, a Level 2 downstream analysis for Y. mile from the project site is required. The applicant should note that Level 3 flow control could be required as part of the Level 2 ERCReport City of Renton Department of Com~unity _nomic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK . Report of September 22, 2014 .EnVironmentol Review Committee Report WA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 13 of 26 downstream analysis. A revised final drainage report and associated plans, based on the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton, is required to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised Drainage Report. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton c. Groundwater Impacts: The subject site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. The purpose of the aquifer protection regulations is to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination by hazardous materials. RMC 4-3-050 outlines prohibited activities with the Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. The proposed single family residential use is not prohibited and is therefore not anticipated to degrade the groundwater quality, if the proposal complies with all water quality requirements listed in the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Additionally, soils are not anticipated to be brought into the site. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not Applicable 3. Plants Impacts: The site is currently forested with mixed canopy dominated by Douglas fir, western hemlock, red cedar, big leaf maple, red alder, and black cottonwood. The site's understory is dominated by salmonberry, vine maple, western hazelnut, snowberry, red elderberry, red huckleberry, and Indian plum. The existing groundcover includes swordfern, bracken fern, trailing blackberry, salal, Oregon grape, and bleeding heart. The applicant provided a Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated November 13, 2013. The plan/report was later supplemented by a revised Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report, also prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated June 6, 2014 (Exhibit 4). The revised report was completed in order to take into consideration revisions made to the plat layout, change to a detention vault, and identification of an additional wetland. Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revised submittal materials, Staff utilized the Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report (dated June 3, 2014) in support of the plat plan dated July 16, 2014 to base its analysis. Based on the provided tree inventory, 1,305 trees are located on the subject site. There are 72 trees located in critical areas and associated buffers; 354 trees were identified as dead, diseased, or dangerous; and 253 trees would be located within proposed rights-of-way and access easements. This results in the exclusion of 679 trees from retention calculations. As such, 626 trees were utilized to calculate retention requirements of 30% of the significant trees located on the site. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 188 trees on site. The provided Tree ERCReport City of Renton Department of communi~onomic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Page 14 of 26 Retention Plan depicts the retention of 147 trees outside of the critical areas and their associated buffers and a landscape plan depicting 246 replacement trees in order to meet tree retention requirements (Exhibit 3). Pursuant to RMC 4-4-130 trees are required to be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. Modification of the tree retention and land clearing plan, or the associated land development permits, may be required to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees. The existing tree canopy contributes to the City's physical and aesthetic character, environment, open space, and wildlife habitat. Therefore the proposed development should result in minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation while at the same time recognizing the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of the property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover. Therefore staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, the applicant be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of- way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers which are required to be maintained. On August 20, 2014 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a revised Arborist Report and Tree Retention Plan which included the retention of at least 30% of significant trees on site. This on-hold was done in order to ensure that a revised tree retention plan would not significantly alter the plat proposal. The applicant submitted an Alternative Tree Cutting and land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated August 27, 2014 demonstrating compliance with the 30% tree retention requirement with the loss of one lot (Exhibit 11). The applicant's alternate tree retention plan depicts the retention of 181 trees outside of the critical areas and their associated buffers. In lieu of replacement trees, 7 trees that are at least 6 inches DBH are proposed to be transplanted from the buildable area into a tree tract thereby satisfying the 30% tree retention requirement. A certified arborist visited the site to perform field inspections and identify which surveyed trees are dead, diseased or dangerous, those located within critical areas and associated buffers, and those located within proposed rights-of-way for the purposes of calculating tree retention/replacement requirements. The provided arborist report states trees were using variable area plots installed on a systematic grid across the site. The sample of the tree population was used to predict the total population of trees with a 95% level of confidence. All trees within the proposed tree tracts were inventoried and evaluated. Staff is supportive of the method used for inventory and generally agrees with the assumptions made in the arborist report. However, it does not appear the tree retention plan takes into consideration grading needed to support the proposed retaining walls along lots 1-6, 14-22, 30-34. As part of the Preliminary Plat approval staff will likely be recommending the applicant demonstrate that proposed retaining walls will not impact trees proposed for retention. Finally, both the Tree Protection Report and the Alternative Tree Protection Report (Exhibits 4 and 12 respectively) include specific recommendations for inspection of retained trees after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester to identify those retained trees that develop problems dues to changing site conditions and prescribe ERCReport ,------------------------------------------------------------- City of Renton Department of Community anomie ~evelopment RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Page 1S of 26 mitigation. Therefore staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, the applicant be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to .retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered. dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Wildlife Impacts: As a result of comments received by the public, the City asked the applicant to investigate the presence of regulated fish and wildlife habitat on the subject site (Exhibit 10). The applicant submitted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, prepared by Soundview Consultants, dated January 16, 2014 (Exhibit 6). The assessment was later supplemented by two Technical Memorandums, also prepared by Soundview Consultants, dated February 11, 2014 (Exhibit 16) and June 12, 2014 (Exhibit 17) respectively. The supplements were provided in order to take into consideration revisions made to the proposal and the identification of Wetland E. Several potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the project according the list generated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife' (Priority Habitats and Species list). The provided report identifies two mechanisms as having potential for impacting potentially regulated fish and wildlife species and/or associated habitat: temporary impacts from construction noise and long term effects associated with increased impervious surfaces. This study identified that no state or federally listed species were identified or known to use the site and/or are located on or near the site. Pursuant to the provided report there is no "critical habitat" as defined by Renton Municipal Code located on or near the subject site. Priority species potentially impacted by onsite project actions include the pileated woodpecker and Townsend bats. Evidence of woodpecker presence was observed in standing snags in and around onsite wetlands; however, no pileated woodpeckers were observed by Soundview Consultants. The report states the forage signs were inconclusive for Pileated woodpecker presence. However, ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community anomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Page 16 of 26 pictures were provided by a party of interest of a pileated woodpecker on site (Exhibit 10.64). The provided report notes that preservation of wetlands will provide protection of these habitat features (pileated woodpecker and Townsend bats) should they actually be present on site. Additionally, the proposed tree preservation plan is expected to provide additional habitat availability for these species. Offsite priority aquatic species associated with the Cedar River in water habitat are not anticipated to be impacted if the proposal complies with stormwater requirements as listed above. While the above conclusions may be true, the site still provides habitat for many non-state or federally listed species. Noted in the projects SEPA check list, and comments from parties of interest, several birds and mammals utilize the site (songbirds, hawks, small rodents, raccoons, deer, crows, and other woodpeckers). The removal of a large portion of the trees would impact existing habitat for common local wildlife. However, 5.28 acres (approximately 24.4% of the site) would remain in a vegetative state providing a sanctuary for the animals that reside in the area. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the subject development would result in a significant adverse impact to wildlife. In order to preserve and protect the wetland and associated buffers the applicant will be required, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over the parts of the site encompassing wetlands and buffer area. Recommended Preliminary Plat conditions will include requirements for permanent fencing of the native growth protection areas which would eliminate human or domesticated animal intrusion and would not adversely impact habitat connectivity. Public comments received also focused on vermin -mice, rats, ground squirrels, etc. -proliferation when grading begins (Exhibit 10). Vermin abatement could be used in order to protect those areas in the vicinity of proposed excavation and grading activities against detrimental effects. Therefore staff recommends the applicant submit a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, which will address the vermin abatement during project grading and site improvements. The vermin abatement mitigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, which will address the vermin abatement during project grading and site improvements. The vermin abatement mitigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply and implement any recommended mitigation according to an approved plan. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-6-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Area Regulations 5. Environmental Health a. Noise ERe Report City of Renton Department of communi.conomiC Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Page 17 of 26 Impacts: Pursuant to RMC noise levels at all operations shall be controlled to prevent undue nuisance to the public. Maximum allowable daytime sound pressure as measured in any residential zone shall not exceed the following between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM and 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays: Sound Pressure Levels· FREQUENCY BAND IN SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN DECIBELS CYCLES/SECOND reo 0.0002 MICROBAR 25-300 80 300-2,400 70 Above 2,400 60 Additionally, all mining, excavation and grading work done in residential areas or within 300 feet of residential areas shall be between the hours of 7:00AM and 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays. No work is allowed on Sundays. Additionally, staff has recommended a mitigation measure for the retention of 30% of the trees on site (see Plant discussion above) and the provision of a is-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site (see Aesthetics discussion below). The retention, and planting, of trees on site will also assist in the abatement of noise generated by the proposal. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not Applicable 6_ Aesthetics Impacts: Public comments were received related to aesthetic impacts and the removal of existing vegetation's potential negative impact on the quality of life and property values of adjacent and abutting properties (Exhibit 10). Neighboring property owners have historically enjoyed views of the natural vegetation on the subject site. While the applicant has submitted an alternative proposal to retain 30% of the trees on site this would still result in the elimination of 1,117 trees on site (Exhibit 11). The removal of such a large tree canopy would significantly alter views in the immediate vicinity enjoyed by abutting and adjacent property owners. The City's landscaping requirements (RMC 4-4-070) are intended to, among other things, address: needs for an increase in privacy and protection from visual or physical intrusion; the maintenance and protection of property values; and generally the enhancement of the overall image and appearance of the City and quality of life for its citizens. The use of a visual landscape buffer along ERe Report ,---------------------------------- City 0/ Renton Department of community.anomic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 18 of 26 the perimeter of the site would help to mitigate aesthetic impacts noted above and specifically raised by parties of interest for those less intense larger single family lots which are adjacent to, or abut, the subject site {Exhibit lO}. The applicant has proposed a primarily 10-15 foot wide buffer along the perimeter of the site along with the retention of critical areas, their associated buffers, and the open space/drainage tract which includes landscaping {Exhibit 2}. The City's landscaping code does include provisions for landscape buffer widths for projects abutting less intensive zones or uses in order to meet the intent above. However, a specific standard for small lot single family development abutting less intense {larger lot} single family development is not explicit in the code. It is not the intent of these regulations that rigid and inflexible design standards be imposed, but rather minimum standards be set. Higher standards can be substituted as long as fencing and vegetation do not exceed height limits specified in RMC 4-4- 040. Given the aesthetic impacts of the proposed development on less intense neighboring properties staff recommends a minimum lS-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site. The lS-feet would allow for the offset of tree planting, as opposed to a linear tree line, which would create a more natural buffer in keeping with the existing character of the site. Such landscaping or landscape plus fencing shall be, at minimum, 6-feet high at maturity and at least 50% sight-obscuring. Existing mature trees are located within this 15 foot buffer should be maintain and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborist that such tree is dead, diseased, or dangerous It should be noted that the applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan as part of the Preliminary Plat subniittal which included the planting of 246 trees on site {Exhibit 18}. However, due to the provided alternate tree retention plan, replacement trees would no longer be required to meet tree retention regulations. Therefore, a revised landscape plan would need to be submitted. Conditions associated with Preliminary Plat approval will likely include a requirement for a revised landscape plan depicting a 10-foot wide on-site landscaping strip along the street frontage of all lots and a planting plan for the required lS-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer. Mitigation Measures: 1. A minimum lS-foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided .. The lS-feet would allow for the offset of tree planting, as opposed to a linear tree line, which would create a more natural buffer in keeping with the existing character of the site. Such landscaping or landscape plus fencing shall be, at minimum, 6-feet high at maturity and at least 50% sight-obscuring. Existing mature trees are located within this 15 foot buffer should be maintain and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborist that such tree is dead, diseased, or dangerous. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-4-070 Landscaping 7. Transportation Impacts: Two access points are proposed to be used to provide access to the subdivision; extensions of SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. Internal circulation includes a roadway network in a grid design like pattern with two cul-de-sacs and four shared private access easements that serve ERCReport -~ City of Renton Department of Community anOmiC Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 .Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Page 19 of 26 up to three lots each. The proposal includes 3,300 linear feet of public roadway (with utilities) improvements in order to provide access to proposed lots. The primary neighborhood streets that would serve project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123,d Ave SE. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, dated November, 2013 as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis an~ the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. Before the independent review could be completed the City received a public comment petition identifying a key intersection not included in the original analysis (Exhibit 10.4). As a result of this comment, the applicant revised the Transportation Report to include analysis ofthe Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection dated April 23, 2014 in addition to a vehicle speed report and traffic volume counts. The applicant submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, dated April 23, 2014 (Exhibit 9). Due to the several revisions made to the plat, and revised submittal materials, Staff utilized the Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014) in support of the plat plan dated July 16, 2014 to base its analysis. On May 16, 2014 the independent secondary transportation review was provided to the City by Perteet (Exhibit 13). Applicable comments from the independent reviewer are provided below for each Transportation subject. Level of Service: The applicable Traffic report states that the proposed development would generate 1,030 trips average weekday vehicle trips including 78 weekday peak hour AM trips and 103 weekday peak hour PM trips (Exhibit 9). The report also analyzed the level of service at the following intersections: 1. Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive 2. Benson Road SIS Puget Drive 3. Royal Hills Drive SEtS Puget Drive 4. 116th Avenue SE/SE 160th Street 5. 116th Avenue SE/SE 168th Street 6. 116th Avenue SE/SE Petrovitsky Road 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th Street ERCReport I I City of Renton Department of Community AnomiC Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 8. Kirkland Avenue SE/lake Youngs Way SE 9. Kirkland Avenue SE/SE 158th Street 10. 126th Avenue SE/SE 160th Street 11. 126th Avenue SE/SE 168th Street 12. 124th Place SE/SE 158th Street .Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 20 of 26 13. Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE Analysis of future conditions addresses cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area. All but two study intersections were conducted in late June 2013. While the traffic study was completed during school break, school traffic generated by Tiffany Park Elementary School was added to count volumes based on the current student enrollment of the school and average trip rates. Traffic volumes at the Royal Hills Drive SE/S Puget Drive and Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersections were collected in April 2014 when public schools were in session. Existing and future without-project lOS and delays were calculated at study intersections. The traffic study states that these intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. All study intersections operate at lOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours for existing conditions. With growth in traffic volumes by 2018, all study intersections would continue to operate at lOS D or better for both AM and PM peak hours. The one exception being Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive intersection which changes from lOS D under existing conditions to lOS E under 2018 traffic volumes for the AM peak hour. In 2018, the intersection of Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive is estimated to operate at lOS E during the AM peak hour under both without-and with-project conditions. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. The remaining study intersections would operate at lOS D or better with or without project traffic during both weekday peak hours. Given lOS D would be maintained with or without the project additional mitigation is unnecessary. Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Currently this fee is assessed at $1,430.72 per new single-family home and will increase January 1, 2015 to $2,143.70. Currently the fee is estimated at approximately $139,000 and would increase to $208,000 on January 1, 2015. The fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit issuance shall be payable to the City. Sight Distance: Sight distance triangles were evaluated at three intersection locations associated with the project site accesses. Major and minor streets are shown for each location. Further discussion of sight-distance at the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE was also analyzed. 1. lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th St 2. Monroe Ave SE /SE 18th St ERe Report City of Renton Department oj Community anomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 3. 124th Place SE/SE lssth St ------------------------------------------ • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S7Z, ECF, PP, CAR Page 21 of 26 The provided Transportation Study notes field measurements at each of the three locations above show sight distances in excess of 200 feet with the exception of SE lsth St east of Monroe Ave SE. Currently, Monroe Ave SE/SE lsth Street is uncontrolled and does not have any marked channelization. Limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Ave SE approaching SE lsth St due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on- street vehicle parking). This limitation could create a potential traffic safety impact with increases in traffic on SE 18th St attributable to the proposed project. Sight distance to the east of Monroe Ave SE is limited by an existing fence along the north side of SE 18th St as well as legal on-street parking on the north side of SE lsth St east of Monroe Ave SE. The report notes traffic safety impacts for southbound motorists on Monroe Ave SE approaching SE lsth St could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Monroe Avenue SE at the intersection and/or restricting on- street parking along the north side of SE lsth St east of Monroe Ave SE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. Staff received several concerns regarding the potential elimination of parking along SE lsth St and requested the City not require the elimination of the parking stalls (Exhibit 10). After review, including the independent secondary traffic review completed by Perteet (Exhibit 13,) staff has determined that a STOP sign with a stopline in thermoplastic placed on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave NE would address the sight distance concerns at this intersection, subject to final construction permit review. The elimination of parking along SE 18th St could also reduce the likelihood of collision but would not be necessary. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant install a STOP sign with a stopline in thermoplastic placed on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave SE to address the sight distance concerns at this intersection. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to the issuance construction permit. Also included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for sight distance analysis at the 124th Place SE and SE lS8th St intersection. The report identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the proVided TIA does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE lssth St intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation if needed. The revised TIA and appropriate mitigation (if needed) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction permits. Finally, the provided TIA included a review of potential safety-related impacts was conducted at the Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th St-Edmonds Way SE intersection. In addition to the collision history at this intersection, this included a review of sight distance for motorists on the minor streets approaching Edmonds Ave SE, existing vehicle speeds, and consideration for a pedestrian crosswalk (see Pedestrian Improvements discussion below) at the intersection given increases in traffic attributable to the proposed project. Staff received several comments related to concerns at this intersection for sight distance and cut thru traffic (Exhibit 10). ERCReport City of Renton Department 0/ communi.onomiC Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 22 of 26 Available sight distance was measured on both the southwestbound SE 16th St approach and northwestbound Edmonds Way SE approach to Edmonds Ave SE. Sight distance was measured to determine if adequate sight distance exists enabling motorists to safely see (and yield to) pedestrians crossing at the intersection. AASHTO recommends at least 200 feet of stopping sight distance along roadways with a design speed of 30 mph. This is an appropriate distance for both SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE as both roadways have a posted speed limit of 25 mph. As noted in the provided Traffic Impact Analysis, 8,300 feet of sight distance exists for motorists approaching Edmonds Ave SE from the northeast and more than 300 feet is available for motorists approaching SE 16th St from the southeast and therefore, existing sight distances exceed the minimum standard (Exhibit 9). However, City staff has received and reviewed comments related vertical sight distance at the intersection of Beacon Way SE and SE 16th St (Exhibit 10.62). City staff conducted an analysis of the intersection and the provided study regarding vertical sight distance at the intersection. Staff concluded due to the vertical curve in the street there is a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve obstructs sight distance where SE 16th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car speeds exceed posted speed limit sign age. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery When Wet, Advisory 15M PH Speed) at SE 16th St northeast of Beacon Way SE which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Given 60% of the project's trip are anticipated to utilize the intersection staff recommends mitigation be provided at the intersection. It has been determined additional signs and pavement markings can adequately address the concerns at this location and mitigate additional impacts caused by vehicle trips attributed to the project. Staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, an additional warning sign for a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed be installed by the applicant on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th St (east of Beacon Way SE). The proposal's increase in the number of vehicle trips is also anticipated to exacerbate existing sight distance and cut thru traffic issues at the identified intersection given 60% of the projects proposed trips are anticipated to use this intersection. After review staff has determined that additional signing would address concerns for sight distance and cut-thru traffic on SE 16th St. In order to reduce cut-thru traffic staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install directional information signage (white letters on green background) Puget and 116th Ave SE facing west. The signs shall read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. Many of the provided public comments request the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure along SE 16th St to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffiC, and spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal (Exhibit 10). While speeds bumps would assist in traffic calming and incentivize the use of Royal Hills Drive as access into the area the City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire engines and aid cars. Eventually the use of speed bumps is something the City may allow, but not at this time. The ERCReport City of Renton Department of communi_anomie Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 23 of 26 mitigation measures mentioned above are expected to mitigate impacts caused by the development. Access: Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code the applicant is required to provide secondary access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and 124th Ave SE. The report states 60% of weekday site traffic is anticipated to travel to/from 1-405 or downtown Renton via Talbot Road S into the site via SE 18th St and the remaining 40% would access the site via 124th Place SE to/from SR-167 via SE Carr Road-SE 176th Street, south and east of the site. Public comments received contained concerns regarding adequate access into the plat and the need for additional access points or the use of 124th Place SE as the primary access into the site (Exhibit 10). Access to the site from 124th Place SE would require the applicant to obtain right of way or a public easement through the Cedar River Pipeline. Frontage Improvements: All internal and frontage roads are required to meet street standards pursuant to RMC 4-6-060. The internal public streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are required. The applicant is not proposing any modifications for the internal road network. While there are existing streets (SE 18th St and 124th Place SE) terminating at the subject site there is no adjacent street frontage necessitating frontage improvements on the perimeter of the site. Pedestrian Improvements: As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways which would connect to the existing sidewalk system. As a result, sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed it is very likely that a large influx of students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18th St intersection, which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18th St and Lake Youngs Way. City staff also evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. With the possible exception of gaps in vehicular traffiC, the proposed project would not directly affect any of the other criteria used by the City to assess crosswalk installation. Even if this particular criterion was fully met, the combination of the other criteria would not be enough to meet the City's warrant for installation. Therefore, no pedestrian mitigation is recommended at Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE at this time. ERC Report City 0/ Renton Department 0/ Community AnomiC Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 .Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Page 24 of 26 Concurrency: A concurrency recommendation will be provided in the staff report to Hearing Examiner based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation. The development will have to meet the City of Renton concurrency requirements. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall install a STOP sign with a stopline in thermoplastic placed on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave SE to address the sight distance concerns at this intersection prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to the construction permit issuance. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE 158th St intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation if needed. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction permits. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised TIA. 3. The applicant shall install directional information sign (white letters on green background) Puget and 116th Ave SE facing west prior to Final Plat approval. The signs shall read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to the construction permit issuance. 4. An additional warning sign for a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed be installed by the applicant on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th St (east of Beacon Way SE). The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to the construction permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18th St and Lake Youngs Way prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to the construction permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-6-060 Street ·Standards, RMC 4-6-070 Transportation Concurrency Requirements, E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text ofthis report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). ERCReport ._--_._--- City of Renton Department of communiAonomic Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Report of September 22, 2014 Page 2S of 26 Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p_m_ on October 10, 2014_ RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action_ Because these nates are provided as information only, they are not subject to the oppeal process for the land use actions. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Water 1. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the S90-water pressure zone and static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. See city water drawings W-0256, W-0508 and W-0469. Connection to the 8-inch main in SE 19th Court will require crossing the City of Seattle pipeline. A permit from Seattle Public Utilities will be required. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for %-inch or 1-inch water meter install is $2809.00. 3. Fee for a %-inch meter drop in by the city is $ 400.00. Fee for a 1-inch meter drop in by the city is $ 460.00. 4. Extension of a new 8-inch water main and new hydrants within the plat will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of alllbts. Existing hydrants counted as fire protection shall be retrofitted with storz fittings if not already in place. 6. Plat shall provide separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat.The development is subject to applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The current SDC fee for a 1" domestic water meter is $2,809.00. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. Sanitary Sewer 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18th Street. Extension of an 8-inch sewer main will be required onsite. It is shown on the plans. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a %-inch water or 1-inch meter install is $2,033.00. 3. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Surface Water 1. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. Several of the lots along the existing wetlands will discharge roof runoff into the wetland areas to maintain wetland hydrology. 2. A geotechnical report, dated September 28, 2012 was submitted by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. The field study included 12 exploration pits on the 21.6 acre site. The site is underlain at shallow depth by lodgement till sediments. For drainage purposes, this medium dense, moist, fine sand with silt is not a suitable for infiltration. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required. A Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation/Street 1. Street lighting is required on public street frontages 2. All public streets and private roads must have 0.5 feet wide vertical curb. 3. Pavement thickness must follow city of Renton standards. 4. Pedestrian connectivity must be provided with no missing portions. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERCReport City of Renton Deportment of communit~ .0nomiC Development RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Report of September 22, 2014 Fire • Environmental Review Committee Report LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR -Page 26 of 26 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including s-inch storz fittings. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 2s-feet inside and 4s-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding ls0-feet. Cul-de- sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required. Landscape islands are not allowed in the cul-de-sacs. General Comments 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. ERCReport ""'~MlY~m .... _ ...... -.oo~ ....... . .. I ............ . , .. , .. , .. "" _ .............. . W'''''''''''''I . Wl-1cz(Rt u..'" 141f1C15 ...... .ctllll' I, '.i ~ ~'I :II 'II "'" " I", " II' n lil:l• ~ G!I ., h fl' ) ., I: "i~1 ': II!I y .;11 'r 'Ii §'i,h !lilIIG ,;~,:I: II·;·'···· ". Ii "1,1 I!I! ! I'll •. ","1,1 Ii q~: i M!!i! !.: " Iii "p •• ld ,'9' •• • .I'h I ! I' I~!~~!i':!' '~II II .!lial"'I;I'11 .1 ' I '~lIIle:' " I, illiinliiHi'i ii .1 - ItllnllullJl I I I I I i 111'1""1111, I I 111111 I , , , ......... 1 _WIO'L.a p\... i' I S,I 1m, ~Iilil Gil i i I ' I I I~II~ r I ~-- o \ : t-- o \ o ,- o o o o \~----. • • • \ \:-- .. \ ,- \ • • • • • WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS 36Q19.43.1723 FAX 3601943-4128 -Final Tree Protection Plan- RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK SE 18th Street Renton, WA W F C I 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C Olympia, WA 98501 Prepared for : Barbara Yarington, Henley USA Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc . Date : June 6, 2014 Introduction The project proponent is planning to construct a new 97 lot subdivision on 21 .66 acres at SE 18th Street in Renton, WA . The proponent has retained WFCI to : • Evaluate and inventory all trees on the site pursuant to the requirements of the City of Renton Tree Protection Ordinance. • Make recommendations for retention of significant trees , along with required protection and cultural measures . Observations Methodology WFCI has evaluated trees 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger in the proposed project area, and assessed their potential to be incorporated into the new project. The tree evaluation phase used methodology developed by Nelda Matheny and Dr. James Clark in their 1998 publication Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Site Description The site was previously logged many years ago and was not replanted. The trees on the site are all naturally regenerated . Five small wetlands are located on the site. There are no structures located on the site . Th ""e are many trails throughout the site . EXHIBIT 4 IRESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL. HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS ON MANAGEMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. CONTRACT FORESTERS , ,n,.",./Iona' SocIety of AtIIoricuffuffI and SocIety of American Foreoter. I • • WETLAND DETERMINATION RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Preliminary Plat City of Renton , Washington Pr epared for : Barbara Yarington Henley USA, LLC 11100 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, W A 98004 Prepared b y: C. Gary Schulz Wetland I Forest Ecologist 7700 S. Lakeridge Drive Seattle, Washington 98178 206-772-6514 June 3 , 2014 EXHIBIT 5 • • FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK JANUARY 2014 EXHIBIT 6 ~-----~-----~ • {jeoteclinica{ Xn8ineerin8 Water ~sources Xnvironmenta{ .:Ilssessments ana ~emeatation Sustaina6Ce Veve{oyment Services . {jeo{o8ic .:Ilssessments • Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Serving tFie Pacific NortFiwest Since 1981 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report 'I'IF'F'ANY PARK SITE Renton, Washington Prepared for Renton School District #403 . Project No. KE120359A September 28,2012 EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 • • PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Reserve at Tiffany Park S.E. 18th Street and 124th Place S.E . Renton, Washington Prepared for: Henley USA, LLC 11100 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue , WA 98004 November 12 , 2013 Revised February 24,2014 Our Job No . 16055 CIVIL ENGINEERING , LANO P LANNING, SURVEYlNG 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FI>Y. BRANCH OFFICES. TUMWATER, WA. LONG BEACH , CA. WALNUT CREEK, CA. SAN DIEGO, CA WNW .barghausen .com • • Revised Transportation Impact Analysis RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK EXHIBIT 9 Prepared for: Barghausen Consulting Engineers , Inc. April 2014 Prepared by : '1/tranSpO GROUP 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland , WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821 -3665 Fex :425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 13175.00 ~ 2014 Transpo Group f :f:t fl1fll :trn mnnmil1jjjEjjjjj!fjjjjj1jj1· n n • ~I JUn es X X X X x x x 18 La w rence X X x X X x X x X X x 19 Lawren ce x x 200cho x X x 21 Sm ith x x y ,- EXHIBIT 10 30 Eri cks on x x x x x x " x x x 31 Jones X 32 lawr ence x x x x x 33 Roen i cke x x x x x 34 Scha ef er x x x x x 35 Beedon x x x X x x x x x x 36 Sch aefer x x x x x 37 Ga r lough x x x x x x x x 38 Mathers x x x x 39 Worden x x x x x x 40 Smith x x x x x 41 Smith x x 42 Fris ch x x x x x x • 43 Gorg x x x x 44 Beedon x x 45 Haber x x x 46 Knu ts on x x 47 Ikuta x x x x x 48 Roc kas x 49 Bell x x x x 50 Fawc ett x x X 51 Pach eco x x x x x x x x x 52 Sm i t h x x x 53 Ahlbeck x x 54 Jones X x 55 Higgins x x 56 Goldman X x 57 Mathers x x x 58 Swanson x x x x x • 59 Swanson 60 Fr isch 61 Donnelly x x x x x 62 Roen i cke x x 63 Yarrington x x X 64 Swan son x 65 Jon es x x x x x x 66 Youn gqui st x x x x x x 67 Beedon x 68 Beedon x 69 Be edon x 70 Qu es enberry x '12n 72r.ID AYENUt: 5OUTI+ K(HT, IIA tIIl)2 1"'\15I -U21 625 251 -171l 'All t£PI..EY USA Ll.C 1000 ~ STREET, EUTE 1JO EELl.E'A.E, WA 98004 I I I /- ( //.--, . .-- .... ,0(, , , , I ....... "\ r' \ I \ I ' , \ ~~-------_\. , , , , t----------, , , , i---------, , , ~ FOR RESERVE AT TII,ANY PARK • • WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS W F c I 360/943-1723 FAX 3601943-4128 . 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C Olympia. WA 98501 -Tree Protection Plan- RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK SE 18th Street Renton, WA Prepared for: Barbara Yarington, Henley USA Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Date: August 27, 2014. Introduction RECEIVED AUG 29 2014 CiTY Of RENTON PLANNING DiVI-':.iON The project proponent is planning to construct a new 96 lot subdivision on 21.66 acres at SE 18th Street in Renton, WA. The proponent has retained WFCI to: ' . • Evaluate and inventory all trees on the site pursuant to the requirements of the City of Renton Tree Protection Ordinance. • Make recommendations for retention of significant trees, along with required protection and cultural measures. . Observations Methodology WFCI has evaluated trees 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger in the proposed project area, and assessed their potential to be incorporated into the new project. The tree evaluation phase used methodology developed by Nelda Matheny and Dr. James Clark in their 1998 publication Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Site Description The site was previously logged many years ago and was not replanted. The trees on the site are all naturally regenerated. Five small wetlands are located on the site. There are no structures located on the site. There are many trails throughout the site. EXHIBIT 12 ORESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL • HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS nON MANAGEMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES· CONTRACT FORESTERS r of International Society of Arboriculture and Society of American Foresters I • • ~ Perteet Memorandum To: CC: 505 Afth Avenue 5., Suite 300, Seattle, WA 981(1.1 I P 206.436.05 15 I F 206.436.0516 Rocale Timmons. City of Renton Peter De Boldt. Perteet City of Renton Planning Division From: Dave Aim. Perteet MAY 2 1 LUi4 Date: May 16.2014 Re: Tiffany Park -Transportation Secondary Review Summary: • The "Revised Transportation Impact Analysis. Reserve at Tiffany Park. Tran.spo Group, April 2014" (TIA) has been adequately amended and expanded to incorporate review cOl)'lments brought by citizen comments and an initial secondary· review conducted by Perteet • Although there remain some concerns with the revised report, the methodology and analysis applied in the TIA are generally appropriate to produce data sufficient to accurately evaluate the anticipated impacts of the proposed development. • We now support the findings and conclusions of the revised report. Specific Review Comments: I. In response to comments on the initial TIA. the revised report contains additional data, including: a, Addition of a section "Traffic and Pedestrian Safety". b. Addition of a vehicle speed report (AppendiX 0). c. Added Figure 8 ;'Available Sight Distance at Edmonds Avenue SEISE 16th Streetl Edmonds Way SE." d. Addition of one intersection to the study area. Intersection 13 (Edmonds Avenue SEISE 16th StreetlEdmonds Way SE. e. Edmonds Way has been added to the study area roadway network f. SE 16th Street has been added to the study area roadway network g. Additional traffic volume counts have been added for Royal Hills DrivelS. Puget Drive, and for Edmonds AvenuelSE 16th Street/Edmonds Way. 2. The proposed project site plan has been modified. although external access and the number of lots remain the same. The new plan creates two flag lots with shared access. . There are no traffic operational concerns with the modified site plan. 3. The revised TIA calls out a concern with inadequate sight distance for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street (cine of the two direct project access routes). The mitigation called for either a new Stop requirement for southbound Monroe Avenue or the removal of parking on the northern side of SE 18th Street. Either mitigation would reduce the likelihood of collision, The installation of a Stop sign at this location would be inconsistent with the general lack of intersection signing in the community and may not be necessary. particu larly if parking were prohibited in a limited area of SE 18th Street approaching the intersection. 4. The project trip distribution could be debated but still presents a representatiVe level of impact and seems adequate for this analysis. The discussion of trip distribution notes it is based on other area studies. yet none are referenced. Aleloadon: C:lUsenlrtlmmoruIAppDaQlloaI\MicrosoftlW;ndowsITemporary Internet AleslCc ReYiew Commenu(Anal5.19).doex EXHIBIT 13 • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Dril'e Suite 400 Kirkland, U7 A 98033 Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve atTiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north ofSE 158'h Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: • Wetland Determination: Reserve at Tiffany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site, which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. EXHIBIT 14 K:\project\32300\32385A \Rcports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc ------------------------------------~------------------------~ • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Poiliis Dri", SlIile 400 Kirkland, W'A 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827·9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 739-7977 July 9, 2014 ResetVe at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385A This review pertains to the Preliminaty Plat application for the ResetVe at Tiffany Park (City of Renton L UA13-001572) submitted by the applil<U1t, N ovastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The propo.~ed ResetVe at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE 158'h Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. The City of Renton (the City) has requested that Otak review the critical area docmnentation and provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. On May 7, 2014, a meeting was held on the site between the City, Henley USA, Barghausen Consulting Engineers (Barghausen), Gary Schulz, Soundview Consultants, and Otak. The purpose of the meeting was to review potential wetland areas and discuss the comments in Otak's memorandmn dated April 3, 2014. The follOwing docmnents were reviewed in tenns of compliance with the critical areas sections of the Renton Municipal Code: • Revised draft plan set for the ResetVe at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen, signed June 10,2014; • Response letter from Gary Schulz to Ms. Barbara Yarington Q-Ienley, USA), datedJune 3, 2014; • Revised Wetland Determination: Reseroe at Tiffa1!J Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated June 3,2014; • Wet/and Determillation: Reseroe at Tiffal!)' Park, prepared by C. Gmy Schulz, (lated Februmy 28, 2014; • Plan set for the ResetVe at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prep-afed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27,2014. EXHIBIT 15 \ \K IRAEOI \proj\projec:t\32300\32385A \Rerort.s\Critical An:';l<; H(.'vieo.v Mcmo_20I·C0709.doc r • • Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Comprehensive Assessment, Planning, [Inti Permitting Services 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, W A 98335 Phone: 253.514.8952 Fax: 253.514.8954 Technical Memorandum To: Barbara Yarington, Henley USA From: Racheal Villa and Bill House, Soundview Consultants LLC File Number: 1219.0001 Date: February 11, 2014 Re: Amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Assessment for the Reserve at Tiffany Park dated January 16, 2014 Dear Barbara, Henley USA, LLC is proposing to develop ninety eight (98) single-family residential lots on a 943,331 square foot (21.66-acres) site 10caHy known as the Reserve at Tiffany Park (Project). The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and Monroe Avenue Southeast, in the City of Renton, WA 98058 (King County). The subject property is situated in the Southeast '/4 of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. and consists of four tax parcels (King County Parcel Numbers 212305-9044, 212305-9051,212305-9154, and 212305-9061). A Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (Soundview Consultants, 2014) assessing habitat and potential species impacts was submitted in January 2014 to the City of Renton. Subsequent project revisions require further assessment of potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and species .. The revised plan includes the addition of several dedicated open space tracts throughout the subject property, including critical area tracts to protect wetlands and significant trees and an open space/passive recreational use tract on a portion of the site .. The remainder of the proposed project will include development in a slightly different configuration in order to incorporate the new open space tracts (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., January 28, 2014). The remainder of this Technical Memorandum will include a revised assessment of project impacts according to the revised plans and is intended for use as an amendment to the original Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment dated January 16, 2014. 1219.0001 Novastar -Renton Page 1 of 3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Amendment EXHIBIT 16 Soundview Consultants LLC February 11, 2014 • • Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Comprcht.;nsivt: Assessment, Planning, and l\:nniuing Services 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: 253.514.8952 Fax: 253.514.8954 Technical Memorandum To: Barbara Yarington, Henley USA File Number: 1219.0001 From: Racheal Villa, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: June 12, 2014 Re: Amendment to the Technical Memorandum for the Reserve at Tiffany Park dated February 11, 2014 Dear Barbara, Henley USA, LLC is proposing to develop ninety seven (97) single-family residential lots on a 943,331 square foot (21.66 acres) site 10caUy known as the Reserve at Tiffany Park (Project). The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and Monroe Avenue Southeast, in the City of Renton, WA 98058 (King County). The subject property is situated in the Southeast ,/, of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. and consists of four tax parcels (King County Parcel Numbers 212305-9044, 212305-9051,212305-9154, and 212305-9061). Soundview Consultants LLC prepared a fish and wildlifc habitat assessment dated January 9, 2014. Subsequent project submittal to the City of Renton prompted third party review by Otak Inc. During third party review, a previously unidentified wetland (\V'etland E) was identified in the wcstern portion of the site. Project revisions were then conducted to accommodate preservation of Wetland E. These project revisions require an updated assessment of potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and protected species at the Reserve at Tiffany Park. The revised project plan includes the removal of one residential lot replaced by Tract M for the preservation of \V'etland E. No further alterations are proposed to the project. This Technical Memorandum provides an updated assessment of project impacts to fish and wildlife habitat according to the revised layout and is intended for use as an amendment to the original habitat assessment report dated January 9, 2014 and prior update provided in the Technical Memorandum by Soundview Consultants LLC, dated February 11, 2014. Proposed Revisions The proposed project reVISIOns include additional preservation of native open space, including wetland habitat, through establishment of Tract M. This tract is located 10 the 1219.0001 Novastar -Renton Page 1 of 3 Fish and \XTildlife Habitat Amendment EXHIBIT 17 tall 1M! .tIIOU DITH IIDI'."~ 14»)D'....m:t 018)11,1-1112 'Aj! ~ -€)& -we : •• ® $ 0 • .... ilililQ}O :I-r;:.~~ Iii! ','Ilid 11 1'1' jl !! 1'llI , • ·~tll I e 11'1'1 1:1.-, I " 'tl F'III f I I ~. i i Ii i I I ... .... • ~ " --~~~I-.~.~.~.~.~.~_~ ~"""'H I "'," ..... , 1·-; :;: :; :;:;: I """"'--;:--.--i:Ij'i iii iii d B., .. ,.. I ~ .. ......, UIA uc ,. ,"tIIr~ PlAN Il1O WAIl _ • ..,.1lO ~w.... I'OIt JIUD .... ,. .,.",MIr'AIII( 'Department of CommC)~ . ~, \., 'Y.7V.r-.. "",;,,-;:. Economic Development ~:::'. 7 ":t Wr ~. "'<.. l' ( ............. " " ...... ,,,,,,,._.~ 'il ~ f i -~~/\ i ~",' .. ' I NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION , ENVIRONMENTAL ~EVIEW COMMIITEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON I The Environmental Review com~ittee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) for the follo-1ing project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. I Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572 Location: SW of Pierce Ave SE and E of end of SE 18th St. The applicant is requesting SEPA Review and Preliminafy Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision. The 21.7 acre site is primarily located within the R-8 zone. The 97 lots would result in a density of 5.70 du acre. Access to th1e site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th PI SE. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands two Category 3 wetlands. Tile ~pplicant is also requesting a Critical Area Exemption for I the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. I Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, I 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing I Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 10555 Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are g6verned by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425-430-6510. I A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on October 21, 2014 at I 9:00 am to consider the submitted application. If the DNS-M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested I parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: SeptJmber 26, 2014 ) ----------------- Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton, WA 980S8 • Community and Economic Development Departmerit C. E:Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Roenicke: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8 and August 11, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: the 124'h entrance, drainage, property values, pedestrians, and slope visibility. Your letters will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for aU public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contal=t me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. :rI:~~ ~~t; Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Barbara Yarrington 11100 Main St, Ste. 100 Bellevue, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E. 'Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Yarrington: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, trees, and wetlands. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (sEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be speCifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process; If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~:~; Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUAt3-00tS72, ECF, PP, CAE ) FINAL DECISION I. SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18 th Street and bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline 20 along the eastern property boundary. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPW AG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The TPW AG SEPA appeal is denied. The 21 22 23 24 25 26 applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. TPW AG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal PRELIMINARY PLAT -I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development. Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MONS mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer these walls from neighboring uses. TPW AG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling than the expert testimony provided by TPWAG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MONS condition of review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City'S MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions I, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to revised language for Conditions I and 3. Condition No.6 remained the only contested issue in the applicant's appeal. The condition required a IS-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience 2 and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings 3 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. 4 CONTENTS 5 I. SUMMARy ............................................................................................................................ 1 6 II. TESTIMONY ......................................................................................................................... 3 III. EXHIBITS ........................................................................................................................... 3 7 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................................................... 4 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .................................................................................................. 24 8 SEPA APPEAL.. ....................................................................................................................... 24 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT ............................................................................................................ 30 VI. DECISION ......................................................................................................................... 39 10 VII. APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES ......................................................... 44 1 1 II. TESTIMONY 12 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary. 13 14 III. EXHIBITS 15 Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the 16 hearing are as follows: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit AS: Exhibit AT: Exhibit AU: Exhibit AV: Exhibit AW: Exhibit AX: Exhibit AY: Exhibit AZ: Exhibit BB: City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11, 2014) TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 14,2014) TPWAG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Henley Response to TPW AG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2015) Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPWAG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Hearing Examiner Ruling -Late Filing (December 15,2014) Henley Response -TPW AG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 19, 2014) Henley Reply -City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 19,2014) City of Renton -TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 22,2014) PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 2 3 Procedural: I. Applicant. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Henley USA, LLC. 4 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was held on November IS, 2014 and continued to December S, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City 5 Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by 6 December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal. City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and 7 preliminary plat comments. S 9 10 II 12 13 Substantive: 3. Project Description and Appeal. A. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96 lots to allow for 30% tree retention. The property is located at the dead end of SE IS th Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island Pipeline. 14 Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the 15 preliminary plat. 16 The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-S zone. A small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-S zone. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500sf to S,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE ISth Street with secondary access extended from I 24th Place SE. 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or mitigate ISS trees in order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirement. Adequate tree retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands B and E). The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE ISth Street through 26 portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. B. SEPA ARpeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Cairncross & Hempelmann on behalf of Henley USA, LLC. 1. APplicant SEPA Appeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions I, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat. a. MDNS Condition I. The applicant argued MDNS Condition I should be revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. I, which is found to adequately address pertinent environmental impacts: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28,2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-approved geotechnical report. b. MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No.3 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows, The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-o/-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated bzifJers. The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% retention requirement (Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment II). PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that are being mitigated by the MONS condition. The City argued the MONS Condition prevents the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(I)(e)(i) to replace trees and instead requires retention of significant trees. The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's SEPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or . mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which might be viably preserved. Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval, The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to constnlction permit approval. c. MONS Condition 6. MONS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested portion of the applicant's appeal. MONS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA responsible official required a IS-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimieter of the development. For the reasons identified in FOF No.5, this perimeter has been reduced toten feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring vIew. 2. TPW AG SEPA Appeal. TPW AG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No.5. PRELIMINARY PLAT -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides is single family residential (R-8), though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east. 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No.6. As noted in Finding of Fact No.5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below. A. APplicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No.3, only one issue remains in the Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter areas in front of the retaining walls. 1. Proposed Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential PRELIMINARY PLAT-7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impact. It is determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed, thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by development. The loss oftrees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. - - - -------------- trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision expressly requiring such a perimeter. Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high. During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for reduced retaining wall heights. A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28, 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height. These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences, especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by the public (proposed Lots 40, 41,46,47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94). When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on PRELIMINARY PLAT -9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining Wall Impacts. The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense screen in 10 years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that staffs 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own arborist l and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the 1 I Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project site. See Exhibit AI, page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.I, the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for the loss of trees on its property. Further, staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b). This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does serve as a good analogous standard for retaining wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection beyond a ten foot buffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation, the imposition of a ten foot buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as concluded by the City's arboris!. PRELIMINARY PLAT -10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. TPWAG SEPA Issues. 1. 2. Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in Finding of Fact 5.A.l, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of PRELIMINARY PLAT -11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. 4. the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the results of the Phase I ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no hazardous materials on site. Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5), a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion of Law 3.B below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any additional information that could have made any material difference in the official's conclusions. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline easement, a residential street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers, unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are PRELIMINARYPLAT-12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5. anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335. The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater, the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested PRELIMINARY PLAT -13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by Earth Solutions, NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There are no sensitive or protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 15 percent to 35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas. Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability analysis for these areas. The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Cog las testified, the City may require extra analysis during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. Mr. Lee felt the infornlation provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site (See Decision Attachment A, Page 24). Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are determinative on the slope stability issue. He clearly reviewed the geotech reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to assess the slope stability of the project site. Groundwater. The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable PRELIMINARY PLAT -14 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 significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15). The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold determination with respect to groundwater impacts. There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation drains and the stormwater vault. The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement. Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to the proposed development on similar topography and soils. There is no indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities; infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have failed due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management practices are followed. Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse groundwater impacts. Downstream ImRacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The City required a Level I downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream analysis for y., mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage of review to evaluate down stream impacts. PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 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. 8. 9. Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and .federalcode requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the {codes are sufficient to address all probable storm water impacts. He further noted\a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be \ required':. for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are releas~dl into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air quality. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary Plat. PRELlMINAR Y PLAT -17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category III. The applicant submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. (October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter (February 28, 2014). Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment 5). At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms. Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site. She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists currently. The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(t)). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from 1.6: 1.0 to 9.5: 1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C to take into account the proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be PRELIMINARY PLAT -18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit approval. The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18 th Street (RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sf) has already been impacted by past infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas exemption with mitigation for the impact. The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres) and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands. 2. Tree Retention Required. 2. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C). The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree retention. The second plat alternative is a 96- lot preliminary plat that achieves 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection Report. Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. Adequacy of InfrastructurelPublic Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been PRELIMINARY PLAT -19 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20 th Court, in SE 19 th Court and SE 18 th Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18 th Street. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will be required 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. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for Y. mile from the project site to determine if the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will be required during engineering review. D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. 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-8 district. However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision. The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. PRELIMINARY PLAT -20 ,------------------------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve project traffic include I 16th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168 th Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108 th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123'd Avenue SE. Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16 th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See Exhibit 10). The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, (November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive, which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts created by the proposal. The TIR noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18 th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied by an MONS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign. Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for sight distance analysis at the I 24th Place SE and SE 158 th Street intersection. The report identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation PRELIMINARY PLAT -21 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 measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE 158 th Street intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16 th Street. The vertical curve of SE 16 th Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve obstructs sight distance where SE 16 th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery When Wet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16 th Street northeast of Beacon Way SE which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16 th Street (east of Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 116th Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read 'TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure along SE 16 th Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire engines and aid cars. Several public comments requested internal pedestrian conneCtiVIty, connections to neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit 10.22). No frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are PRELlMINAR Y PLAT -22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E. City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16 th Street-Edmonds Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at this location. As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access. Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours, construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to construction. 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. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary (0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported to school via bus. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and trom school and/or bus stops. Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way PRELIMINARY PLAT -23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18 th Street intersection, which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18 th Street and Lake Youngs Way. No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students who will be attending Nelson Middle School. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also 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 at the time of building permit application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and would increase to $5,541.00 on January 1,2015. v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The majority of the subject property is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-S). A small portion of the subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPAAPPEAL 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (I) there are 24 unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official 25 has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -24 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 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a ONS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC I 97-11-330(l)(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable" as follows: 'Probable' means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in 'a reasonable probability of more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment' (see WAC 197-11-794). Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test. If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the ONS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MONS is judicially reviewed under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110- (E)(l2)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-110(E)(l2)(a). B. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason a ONS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts ofa proposal. WAC 197-11-335. c. No Grounds for an EIS. TPW AG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in Finding of Fact No.5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPW AG qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPW AG has not identified an impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably assess impacts. 4. Perimeter Landscaping, MONS Condition NO.6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40,41,46,47,80,82,83-90,93 and 94. PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 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 applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.2IC.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW 43.2IC.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact. Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of impact. See RCW 43.2IC.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent of these regulations that rigid and inflexible design standards be imposed, but rather that minimum standards be set." The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No.6, the proposal will involve up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it, which in tum can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining walls. The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that PRELIMINARY PLAT -26 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 reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of other SEPA policies that promote aesthetic compatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii) provide that one of the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new development to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. All of these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the lower surrounding residential densities. The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose some lots. Given the judicial construction of "reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable. As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No.5, the solid walls created by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualif'y. No reasonable minds could differ on the opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative PRELIMINARY PLAT -27 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 26 retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS. 5. Retaining Wall Height. The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staffs recommended landscape perimeter. The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (l) whether the City's fence and hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply, whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 is to regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(l) provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to "wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 4-040(C)( I) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well. PRELIMINARY PLAT -28 Denis Law . Mayor. • Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE . Renton, WA 98.058 . Communit/& Economic DevelopinentDepartment . . ·C.E,"Chip"Vin~ent,Administrator . '.' SUBJECT: . RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK 'COMMENi' RESPONSE (mER LliA13,001572, PP;ECF.· . . . . Dear Mr. and Mrs. Erickson: . Thimk you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park;' dated August 8, 2014 · wherein' you' raised. concerns regarding: traffic,: the'124th entrance, drainage,. trees, access, ... schools, w~tland,lot size,.pedestrian~, open"space;andconst;uctionmitigation. Your ietter wil! b.e added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you l1avebeen' . adde~as apartV of record. . '.. .' .' · To address your concerns the applicant will be requir~dtocomply with the City'S development :' .. regulations as. well as 'Washjngton . State's .' Environmental Policy· (SEPA) . which .. includes · requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the developm·ent. . The' City·. wili ;~v;ew the prop~:Sal.""ith regard to the .ixotection ()f valuable· environm~ntal .' · amel]ities and to ensure the. development is ascoinpatible as possible with the ecological .' balance of'the ·area.'The· goals of tile CitY' are to preserVe drainage patt'erns; proteCt groundwater supply; prevent erosion and to preserve trees:a~d .natural vegetation. Ad'ditionally, ' .. theapplicant is required to del1lonstrate proper' provisions for all publictatilities (including access,circulation; utilities, and services).: .. ;' : . : P~blic comments/questions con the propos'al will be used along~ith the information provid~d by · the'applica~t and the' independentst'udies toinformou'r review'and recommendations to the . Environme:ntal Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The Citywillbe specifi~ally . addressi~g all ofthepublic;s comments in two:s'eparate reports (Eiwironmental Review Report' and Hearing .Examiner RecommE!ndation Repo'rt) that: will be sent out to all of the. parties of record: .. . . '. . .... . . . I hope this letter addresses your. concerns and proliiaes·You with the information. t6. hetter ~~gage in o~rupcciming public process: If you have· any further questions ple~sneel.free. to· . contact me at 425-430'7219.or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov.Thankyou: . . . Sincerely, .: .. ' '.' •... . . '. ·····.~W~···· .... Wt; Planner.· ' ...... ,. '. Renton City Hall.: 1 0~5 South Grady Wa;·. Renton, Washington 98057.·.rentonwa.gov , .' Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 • Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98057 Community and Economic Development Department C. E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: the 124" entrance, access, wetlands, wetland mitigation, and phasing. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~~t; Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Eddie Rivera 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E. 'Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Rivera: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 7, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, drainage, trees, wetlands, pedestrians, wetland mitigation, and open space. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ;;t; Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ", . '. . ", " DeniSLaw". , . "M~y6r 'September i9,,2014 , Don~a.Thorkiidsoh 2621 SE 16th St ' ' Renton, W A. 98058 Community & Economic Development Department' , ' ,,' C.E. "Cni p~'\/i ncent, Admi nistratoi ~UBJECT: ' RESERVE ATTIFFAiIIY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER' i.UA13~001572, "P, ECF . ' " DearMs:Thorkildson: ' .... ' Thank YOu'f6r~ourcomrrientsrelatedto the Reserve at Tiffany pa~k; d~ted, August '8' 2014 'wherein you raised concerns regarding:, traffic" th~ 124'h' entrance, drainage, tr~es,access, " ,schools; wetland, lot size, pedeshian,s; qperi space; and construction mitigation. Your letter will " , , be' added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing offiCial and you have been' ~dded asaparty.of record'.' ' ,',' " , , , " ' To addressyqur concer'nsthe applicant will be required to complywith the City'sdeveidpme~t 'regulations 'as well as Washington, State's Environmental' Policy' (SEPA) whiCh includes' ' req~irements for~itigatioh for impacts caused byihe development," ' . . ' .'. .' . . .' . . , : , The City wiiUeview the'proposalwith', regard to,the protectioi; of valu~bleen~irorirriental 'amenities and to ensure theclevelopmeht is as compatible as 'possible withthe'ecological' 'balance of the' area, The goals of, the City are to pr~seive drainage' patterns,'prdtect" groundwater suppiy; prevent erosion and to p.reserVe trees and riaturalv,eget~ti6n. Additionally, "the applicant is required to'demonstrate propeiprovisions 'for all public facilities (including, ' , access,Circulation, utilities,and services). ,",.' ' . Public comments/que~tions ~n the pr6posal will be u~ed along wit~theinformation provide~ bY' the applicant ,and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the 'Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examine'r. The 'City will be speCifically addres~irigall ofthepubiic;s comments in two separate reports (Emiiromi'ierital Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that ,\'I'ill be sent out to all of ,the parties of . ' . ". 1 reco,rd, ' 'I' hope, this letter ~cldresses, your concerns and provides you 'With the' information to 'better' , engage Inour upcoming public process: 'If you have any further questions please feel free to , contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentoriwa.gov. Thankyou. ' , , ' . " .. , ...'.', .. ~~~. ',' ~:t~ Planner ..' RentonCity HaIL.l0555~uth ~radYWay. Renion,Washingt~n 98057 • fent~nWa,gov" " ",' . . . . . . .' "!o':" .$ G~' · -----=:...---............ II~~r(t)\~ September 19, 2014 David 8. Renate Beedori . 1725 Pierce Ave SE · Renton, WA 98058 ....... ' ,1,.j.l!lW~ Community & Economic Development Department .. ' '.' CE:Chip"Vincent,Administrator. · .SUBJ~CT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER -' . .... . _.,. -. LlJA13-00157i, PP ,EC~ " .. ~ · DearDavid,& Renate Beedon: '" . '. Thank you for yourcomments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8~ 2014 .' .. wherein you b'oth raised concerns regarding: pa'rking on18~h,traffic, wildlife, drainage; tre~s,' wetlands, property~alues, aquifer, wetland mitigation,c~'n'stfuction mftigaticiri, and, slOpe, · visibility. Your ,letters will be added to the public record . for consideration by the. reviewing' · officiala.nd you have been added .as a 'party of record,.' ' .... ' To address your conce'rns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's devefopment . · regulations: as . well, as . Washington State's' Environmental' Policy (SEPAl' which, includ~s, '. '. requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the de~elopment . ,;. "', . The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection' of valuable en'vironmental . · ameniti,esand to ensure' the,. development is as compatible as possible withtiie 'e~016gical, balance of the area, The ,goals of ,the Cityare,to preserve 'drainage 'patterns, protect" .. 'groundwater supply, prevent erosio~andto preserve trees and natural vegetation, Additionally" . the applicant is required to demonstrate properprovision5.for all public facilities (including, . , access, circulation, utilities,'and servi~es): " . ..... .... , ,-. , . Public com'ment~/questions on the 'proposaiwill be us~d alongwith theinf6rmatlon provided by the applicant and the ,independent studies to· inform our review and recommendations 'to :th'e" EnviroTJrn'e'ntal Review Committee and theCitis HearingExami~er. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public,s·comm'entsin two ,separate reports (Environmental Review Report .. a~d'Hearing ExaminerH~c~m'mendation Report) .that ""iii be sent6~t to'allof the parti~s of re~~.· . I hope this letter addresses your coric~rns'a~d'provides you .with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process .. If you have any further questions please feel free to' · contact me at 425-430-7219 orrtimmons@rentonwa:gov. Thank you. ,,' , ' . . . . ......; ..• ~~ .. • ~;t; Planner· '., . . . Renton City Han • 1.055 South Grady Way ~ Renton, Washingtor\ 98.057 • rentonwa.gov '.' . Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 • Robin and Miatke Jones 3624 SE 19TH CT Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E. ·Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding notice and DNS. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~:t; Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov , .... '. Denis Law Mayor · September 19, 2014 Phillip and Tammy Schaefer , )301 SE 20th Ct . Renton, WA 98058 ' · ". .'. . . . '. Community.& Economic Development Department.: . '. ' C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: . RES~RVEATTIF~ANYI'ARK COMM~NT RESPONSE LETTER' . . LUAi3,001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr, and Mrs, Schaefer: Thank you for your comments rel~tedio the ReserVe'at Tiffany Park; dated.AuglJst 5' ancfAugust '8, 2014 wherein you both raised co~cerns regarding: traffic, drainage, sch,oo.ls, propertY values, ' wetland. mitigation,' and irnpactfees.' Your letters will be added' to .. the public record' for' .... cDns'ideratiDn by the revi~wing Dfficial'and YDU have been added .as a party Df recD'rd,,' . . ·Teaddress your concerns the appli~ant will be.'required to cDmply with the. Citys develppment . "regulatio.n~ as well as )Nashington State's EiwirDnmental PDiicy (SEPA) whiCh includes' · requirements,for'mitigationfDr impacts caused by the deveIDpment.-, • •• • .' • J • Th~ Ci~y willrevi~w thepro.po.sal with regard ~o the pro.tection o.f valuable~nviron':;'erital . amenities and to ensure the develo.pment is 'as co.mpatibleas po.ssible with the ecological' " balance o.fthe' area, 'The go.als of 'the: City, are ~o. -preserve' drainage 'patterns" protect: grolmdwatersupply, prevent erosio.n and to. preserVe trees ~ndriatural vegetation, Additio.nally, . : the appliCant is required to. demo.nstrate pro.per .pro.visio.ns f()rallpublic facilities(in~luding '.' '. access, circulatio.n,utilities,and services), . '. ' .. ,pubiiccem;"~nts/que'stio.ns ~n ;tie pro.posalwlli be used aio.ng with th~i~fDrn-;atio.;'provided by"" · the applicant~nd the independent studies to' infDrm ourreviewarid recDrrimendations.to. the ~nvironmental Review Committee and the City's Hearirig Examiner, The City will be,specifically · addre'ssing all o.f the publiciscommeritsin two. separate repo.rts (Environmental Review RepDrt' and Hearing Examiner Recommendation' Report) that will be sent o.ut to all of the parties of . record, .-" ,'" "" . . "...' ' ,,'" '. . I ho.pe this letter address~s your, co.ncerns and provides you with ,the info.rmatio.n to., better engage in o.ur'upcori'iing public process~'lfVo.u have any further questions please feel free to.' co.ntact me at!i25,430-72190rrtimmons@rentOnwa',go.v: Thankyo.u,· . , . ' , . , '. . . . . •. ~~~. '. :;:t; planner,,' .' .. " .. ' .', He~tonCity Hali .10.55 South G;adyway ~ Renton, Washington 980.57. r"ntcnwa,gov '.' Denis Law Mayor-' - September 19,2014 · Larry Gorg . Community & Economic Development Department .. C.E:Chip"Vincent, Administrator .... 1800 lake Youngs.Way SE . Renton, WA 98058. . SUBJECT: · Dea'rMr:Gorg: . .. ' . ,"" ,_.' '. . . . .. -:".:, :" RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARKCOiVIMENTRESP()NSE LETIER' . LUA13-00157Z; PP,.ECF '. \ . Thank you for your comments rel.ilte'd to the Reserve at Tiffany' Park; dated August 7, 20i4' wherein you raised concerns regarding: notice; .• access; . lot' size,iNetiands, and wetland · mitigatiol1. Your letter. will. be. ~ddedto the public record for 'consideration by the reviewing. official arid you have been added asa'party of record . . " .' .. ." "To .~ddress your concerns the applicant"will.be required to comply with the Ci~y's develo~ment.· . regulations as well as' Was,hington State's Enviro~menhil'poIiCY' (SEPA) which includes · requirements for mitigatiori.for impacts caused by the development. • '. ,Theeity will. review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable. envi~bnrrie~tar amenities and' to"ensure the development is as. compatibl~,as possible'with the' ecol~gicai balance of ihearea.· The goals ot. the :City are to . preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply; prevent ero~ion and to preserve trees and nat~ral vegetation. Additionally, the applicantisreCjuired to. de';'onstr~te" proper provisions for all.J;ublii: facilities (including access"circulation, utilities! and services)." .' . . ~ .. Public c~mmentsjquestionson th~prop6sal willb~'\Jsedalong ;""ith ttie i~forrriation pro;ided by. · the applicant and theindepend~nt studies' to inform our revie;""and recommendations to. the Environmental Review Comrriitte~and the City's: Hearing Exa';'iner. Th.e. City will be specifically addn;ss'ingall'o(the publicis. comments. in two se'piHate reports (E~vironmental Review Report · and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) thatwill be sent oullo all. of. the parties of " record. . . . .. ' .. '. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with theirlfor';'ation to better'. engage in our upcoming public pro~ess. if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425'430'7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. . '.. '. . " . . '.' ~Sincere~~ ~""" 4 . .. '.. . 'ocae~~' . Se!1· r Plan~er .' .'. . " .. :. '". . --;- ',. .. Henton City H~II. 1055 South Grady~ay ,Henton,Washjngt~n 98057; rentonwa.gov . Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Smith: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 1, August 7, and September 10, 2014, wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, wildlife, drainage, trees, wetlands, noise, pedestrians, property values, and construction mitigation. Your letters will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy {SEPAl which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). . Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better. engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Renton City Hall. , 055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 1----------I Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Elizabeth Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LmER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Frisch: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 7, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, trees, wetlands, schools, density, and pedestrians. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~;f; Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denislaw , Mayor, ". September 19, 2014, ,JaneWorden , " 15624 129th PI SE ' Renton;WA 98058 ',Commun,ity & Economic DevelopmentDepartment , C.E:'Chip:'Vincent; Administrator, , SUBJECT:, ,', RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUAP'001572, PP, ECF' ,,',' DearMs, Worden: ' ..... Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve' at Tiffuny Park; datei August 7, 2014 'wherein' you raised ,concerns, regarding: traffic, trees, ,wetlands; schools,'lot ~ize', and ,', , q)r1structicin mitigation, .Your letter ';'illbe added'to the public record for.consideration by the 'reviewing official andyou,have been added asa party'of record. '" " To addressYDu'r concerns the applicant will lie, required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Wa~hingtonState's'Environmental Policy (SEPA) ';'hii:h includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by ttie ,development. ' The' City' will revie;V the, proposal~ith regard to the protection of valuable environmental , amenities and to ,ensure' the' development is:as' compatible, as possible with 'the ecological balance of ttie: ,area, 'The goals of the City ,are topreseive drainage patterns, protect groun'dv"atersupply, prevent erosion and,to preserve trees and,natural vegetation, Additionally, , .' the applicant is 'required to' dE!ITionstrate, proper p'rovisions for .all public facilities (inCluding, , access, circulation, utilities, and'se'rvices). ' , , , , . : . . .' ' ,. Public comments/que~tions on the proposal will be used along with the infor,mation provided by , , the applicant and the indeperident'studies to inform our review' andrecommendatioris to,the "Environmental Review. Committee and, the Ci~'sHearing Examiner. The City will b~, specifically' addressing all'of th~public'stomments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report "andl:learing Examiner Ret'omm~ndation Rer>art) that will'be sent out'to all of the parties of ," , nicord. ' , " " , ' . " , .... I hope this ,'letter addr~sses your concerns and provides you' withtheinformation to better' " 'erigage' in bur: upcoming public process. If 'you'have any further questions, please feel free to', ,'ccintactmeat425"430-7219br rtimmons@rento~v.,a,gov,Thilnk you. ' ' . . ...... . . %.~~ ,'~:~; Planner ,', ' , ',', ' "'. . ,c' Re~ton C'ity Hall ~.105S Sout~ Gr~d~Way • Reriton',~aS~ing~On ~805~ • ~e·nto~wa.gov . . . '. . ...• . Denis Law ." Mayor " . ' •. September19,2014. Robert & Cynthia Gariough . .3203 SE 18th St . Renton; WA 98058 Community & Economic o"evelopment Department'.: . .' . ,C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator' SI.JBJE~i: 'RESERVE AT TIFF~NY PARK C~MMENT RESPONSE LmER '. LUA13-001572, PP; ECF Dear Mr. and Mr~.Garlough: .:' Thank you for Your.comme~ts relilted to theR~serve atTiffany Park; dated Atig~st 6 and August 8, 2014 wherein you. both; raised concernsregarding'~ notice, Pilrking on'18'h, :traffic;. wildlife, drainage,tre~s"access; noise, schools,property'values; aquifer, and wetland' mitigation. Your hitters will. be.added to the public record' for co~sideration by the reviewi~g officiaL and you have b~enadded as·aparty of record. " . .' .... To .. address yourcoricerns the applicant ",IUbe'required to comply with the Cit'(sde~elopment reg~Iations as. well ~s' Wa~hington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA)' which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts:causedby the dev~lopment .. " . . ' The City will review the propoial withregar,d to the protection of valuable environmental . . amenities' and to ensure the development is·a; compatible' as possible with .the 'ecological .'. '. balance o{ the. ·area. The gOiils.ofihe, c';ty. are to preserVe drainage patterns, .protect ' grou~dwater supply, pr~vent erosion and to:preserve trees and riaturalvegetation .. Additionail y; the. 'applic1mtis required to. demonstrate' pro'perprovisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services).' . . . Public comments/questions on the proposal will be usMalongwith the informationpicivided by the applicant and the' independent studies 'to infOrm our review and recommendations 'to the· . . Enllironmerital RevieW Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner .. The City will be specifically addressing all oUhe public's'comments in' two separate reports (Environmental Review Report ". arid' Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will. be sent out to all of the' parties of reco~, .' '. .. .' . . I hope thislett~r.addresses your concerns andprovides yO'~with the information to better engage in 9urtipcomirig public process: If you have any further questions please feel free to . . contact me at 425"430,·7219'orrtiinmbns@lrentonwa.gov. Thank you. . . . '~Sincere~~ A 4 .'. .' . . ....... . ·· .. :··cicae~~ ." .sen·, rPIanner .. " '.' .,' .•.. . . '. .... \ '. ilenton City Hall-. 1055 SouthGrady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip·Vincent; Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Rockas: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding traffic. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations "as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~~t~ Planner Renton City Hall • '055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • ,entonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Alaine Ikuta 1709 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E. 'Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Ikuta: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, trees, wetlands, noise, and construction mitigation. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be speCifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~~~~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 John Knutson 300 SW 7th St Renton, WA 98057 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Knutson: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding schools and trespassing. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will bfi! required to comply with the City's .development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect . groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~:~~ ~~~; Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way ~ Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law May_C!r . James & Mary 'Haber . 1716 Monr()e Ave SE . Renton, WA98058 • .. Community & Economic Development Department . :. C.E.'Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY p~RkcolVirv1EIliTRESPONSE LETTER" LUA13,OOl572,pp,eci: Dear Mr.and Mrs. Haber: Tha~k you for your comments related io the ReseiVe at Tiffany .park; dated August '8, 2014 . whereinyou raised concerns regarding: drainage, access, and construction mitigation:. Your lett~r will be added to the public'record.forconsiderati()n by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record... ..' . To address your concen1sthe applica~t will' be required to comply with the City's de~elop";ent . regulations as. well 'as Washington. St~te's.·· Environmental policy' ·.(SEPA) which, includes, . '. '., req~iremeritsformitigation for impactsc'aused by the development. • . . ". ' " ", . -," " . The City will review the pnjposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental . ainenitiesand to Em~u;e the cie~eICipment. is as' compatible as possibl~ with the ecological balance of the, area. The goalsof the city are to. preserVe drainage patterns, protect: groundwater supply; prevent erosion and to preserve 'tr~esarid natural vegetation. Additionally, • ttie applicant is required to demonstrate. proper provisions for ali public facilities (including . acceSs; cirtulatiori, utilities; arid services), ' . , . . . "'. .' . . f>~blic comm~rits/questions on theproposalwill be usedalohg with theinforrnation prov'ided by ..... the applicant a~d theindependenf studies to inform our reView' and 'recommendations to the " Environmental'Review Committee and the City'S Hea'ring Examiner. The City'will tie sp'etifically 'addressing'all of the public's comments in two separate reports (EnvirO~mentaIReviewReport and Hearing'ExaminerRecommendationReport),that iNHI ,be sent,out to aUoi ttieparti~s of" '. record, I hope this lette:addr,esses' your concerns and provides you with~h~information t; better .' engage in our upCOming public process,.lf youhaveanyfurther'qu'esti()ns please feel free to . contact me at 425-430'7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa,go~:Th~lnk you.. .'. . ~~~ '. ~~~; Planner ." '.' .' .. ' .......... . 'Renton City Hall .1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.g~v . ·c DenisLaw·· •. . Mayor' · September 19, 2014 '.' · ,". ," .. ". ;. Belind~ Mathers 2806 SE 16th St '. Renton, WA'98058 '.-. . . . ", Community & Economic Development Department '. ',.. C.E:Chip"Vincent, Administrator , SUBJECT: .. RESERVEATTIFFANY PARKCOMMENT RESPONSE LETTER' LUA13;001572, PP, ECF .. · Dear Ms. Mathers:' .: Thank .you for your·comme~ts related to' the Heserve at:nttany Park;. dated August 6 and . September 9, 2014' wherein you 'raised . concerns . regarding:.·traffic,·wetlands,. schools, .' pedestrians, lot size, and density. Your letter will be' added to the public record for consideration .' bythereviewingofficiaLandyou hav~ been adpedas a party of record:' . Toad.dress your concerils the applicant will be required to comply ;"'ith theCity'~ developme~t r~gulatibnsas well as' Washington . State's" Environmental' PolicY (SEPA) which includes' requirements for niitigation for' impacts caused by the."development. . . . ' i"heCity will r~view the propo~al with regard totheprot~ctionofvaluable eriviro~mental · amenities and to E!nsure:thedevelopme~t:isascompatible. as possible with the·ecologital· · balance· of the area.· The goals. of the City"are to preserve .drainage patt.erris, protect·' groundwater s~pply, pre"enterosiori and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applic~nt is required to demonstrate proper provisions fo~' all public' faCilities (including •. · access, circulation,utilities,imd services)." .• .' . . Public c~inments/qUestions on the prOposal will be u~ed' alongwithttieinformatici~ provided by th~ applicant and the independeritsWdh!s to inform our. review and retomme~dations to ttie . · Environmental ReviewCommitteeahd the City's Hearing E.xamil1er. . The City will be specifically addre'ssing all of t~e public's comments in: two separate reports (Emiironmental Reviev/Report and 'HearingEXaminer Recommendation Report) that wil.1 be ~ent out to all of the parties of .. · record. . . .' hope thish~~te"r addresses your concerns'ahdprOvides you with the information to better .' . engage in ourupcomirigpublic prOce~s: . if you have any further questions please feel free to '. tontact me at 4'25-430-7219 ~r rtimmo·ris@rentonwa.gov:Thank you.' . " . . . . -. .' . SinCere~IY'. .' ...... " . . ::~ ... , ...... ' . .........•... ~ · oca e:rim.·· .. '" . • Sen' r Plan~er :." . ..... . Renton city Hall •. , 055 South Grady Way >Renton, Washingt~n 98057. rentoriwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 -------------------c---- • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER WA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Fawcett: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 10, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding wildlife and noise. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to -inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. -&~ ~~~; Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Helen Pacheco • 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Pacheco: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 10,2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: nOise, schools, property values, pedestrians, compatibility, and construction mitigation. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addreSSing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the 'parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. -&~ ;:t; Planner Renton City Hall'. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis law Mayor September 19, 2014 Jay Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE lmER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Ahlbeck: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 12, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding drainage and trees. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City'S Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~:~~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E. ·Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-00157Z, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Higgins: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 9, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding traffic and schools. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~~~; Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South GradyWay • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law • ~ayor September 19,2014 Daniel Goldman, ' ' ,1608 Giennw60dAve SE , Renton,WA 98058 ", '" Community & Economic Development Department , , " 'C.E:iChip"Vincent; Administrator SUBJECT: , RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER' , " ,LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear'Mr;Goldman: , Thank y~u for your comments related tathe Reserve at Tiffa~yPark; dated Septem'ber 9, 2014 , 'wherein you raised concerns regarding traffic and construction 'mitigation, Your letter will be ' added'to the public ~ecord for consideration by the reviewing official and you ha~e been added , ,as a party qf record,' '", '.' To address y6urcOncernstheap~licantwili beJequired to comply, w;ththe City's developmer)t regulations as well as Washington Siate's Environmental, Policy '(SEPAl which iricludes re~uireme~tsfcir mitigation for impacts caused by the dev~lopment ',;, ,'. ",', "The, City Will review, the, proposal with regard to the protection' of-valuableenvirorimental', , amenitiesandto, ensure' the development is as compatible aspossiblewittl the eCological balance of the 'area, niegoals of'the City are to preserve ,drainage ,pal\erns, protect" groundwater supply, prevent erosion ,and to preserve trees, and nat~raivegetatiori, Additionally, theapplitant is, required to demonstrate proper ,provisions for all pubiicfacilitiE!S (including ',' access, circulation, utilities,and services). " ' '" " , , ;, publiccomm~nts/question~ ~n the propo~al will b~,u~ed along withtlie information provided by the ,applicant imd1:he independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the ,Environmental Review Committee a'nd the City's Hearing Examiner. TheCitywilibe specifically addressing ali, 'of ihe p'liblic's com~ents in two separate ,reports (Environmental Review Report and'Heari~g Examiner Recommendation: Report) that wiilbe sent 6ut tei all cif 'the parties of . re~ord; " ," " , ' " , '" ' , "". " I hope this'letter addresses your coricerns and provides you with the information tabetter , ,engage in our upco'ming, public process., If you have any further questions please feel free to .' contact me at 425:430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov>'Thankyou, ' ' ","' ~::~~ ,','~~t~ Planner , Renton City Hall • '055 South Grady Way _ Renton, Washi'ngtori98057.rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Rachael Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E.·Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Bell: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, wildlife, schools, and property values. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~~~; Planner Renton City Hall. , 055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 6, August 7, and September 15, 2014, wherein you both raised concerns regarding: traffic, drainage, access, wetlands, noise, schools, construction mitigation, and wetland mitigation. Your letters will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~~~; Planner . Renton Oty Hall. lOSS South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonw •. gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Donnelly: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 4, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: drainage, trees, noise, wetlands, and construction mitigation. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's. Environmental Policy {SEPAl which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~;~~ Planner Renton Oty Hall. lOSS South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Susanne Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 980S8 Community and Economic Development Department C. E. 'Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LEITER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Swanson: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 6, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding wildlife. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better en·gage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~~t; Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Lanissa Youngquist 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E.'Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Youngquist: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, noise, schools, pedestrians, park space, and wetland mitigation. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425·430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~;f~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E. "Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Roenicke: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8 and August 11, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: the 124'h entrance, drainage, property values, pedestrians, and slope visibility. Your letters will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development~ The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/qu\=stions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~~~~ Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Barbara Yarrington 11100 Main St, Ste. 100 Bellevue, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E. 'Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Yarrington: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, trees, and wetlands. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy {SEPAl which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~~f; Planner Renton City Hall -1055 South Grady Way -Renton,Washington 98057-rentonwa.gov , ,.. Denis Law . Mayor. September 19, 2014"'. • Geoff & Meredith EricksD~' : 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA98058 Communiti& Economic pevelopmentDepartment C.E. "Chip"VincEmt,Administrator' .. , ~ SUBJECT: . RESERVE AT TIFF,o.Ny PARK'COMMENT RESPONSE LEnER LUA13~001572, PP ,ECF · D~ar Mr. and Mrs: Erickson: · Thank you for your comments related to the Reserveiat Tiffany Pa;k; dated August 8, 2014 · wherein you raised: concerns regarding: traffic, the 124th . entran·ce;drainage,. trees,. access, schools; wetland, lot size, .pedestrians, open"space;andconstruction mitigation, Your letter will' .' be added to the .public record for consideratidn .by the' reviewing official 'and yo~ nave been .. added.as apartyof record. . '.. . . . . · To address yourconcerns the applicant will berequh'edtocomply with the City's development · regulations a·s·. -wel'l asWashjngton State's Envi'ronmental' Policy (SEPA)' whiCh includes .' requirements for mitigation for impactS caused by the deve'lopment: The' City·. wili review the prop~salwith regard to • theprotectio~()f' valuabie·· environmental" 'amenities and to ensurethe:development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the -area.-The goals of the City' are to preserve drainage patterns, 'protei:! groundwater supply, prevent erosion .ana to pres'erve trees arid natural vegetation. Additionally, • the'applicant is required to demo~strate proper .. provisions for all public faCilities (including ~ccess,circ:ulation,: utilities, and serVices). '. ' . . ' ...•. . Public comments/questions on the p;oposalwill be used albngwith the iriformati~n providedby .' the 'applicant arid the' independent studies to' inform6ur review' and recommendations tothe · Environmental Review Committee and'the City's Hearing Examiner: The' CitywiU be specifically .. addressing all of'thepublic's comments in two :s'eparate reports (Environmental Review Report' and Hearing .Exa·miner Recommendation Report) that Will be sent out to ali ofthe.parties cif record. . .. . . . . I hope ·this letter addresses you~. c'oncerns and provides ·you with the information, to. better ~ngage in our tipcomin~ publi~ process: If you have:any fuhher questiOl;s pleasideel free. to contact me at 425-430'7219.or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov.Thank you. .. ~;~~. . ..... ~;t; PI~nrier. .... .... ' ..... . • 'J ~'.' '.' .'" '.. • ' • ,', .' .' •••• • •• ' .:.. • .' .' • : : • . Renton City Hall." 1 055South Grady Way'." Renton,Washington 98057." rentonwa.gov , :' Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 • Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98057 Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: the 124'h entrance, access, wetlands, wetland mitigation, and phasing. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report . and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ;~f~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov -------------------------------------- Denis Law , Mayor September 19, 2014 Eddie Rivera 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Rivera: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 7, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, drainage, trees, wetlands, pedestrians, wetland mitigation, and open space. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's developm'ent regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out·to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~;t~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South GradyWay. Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ", " '. Denis Law ", ' • . M~~y6r September 19,2014 , Donna Thorkildson ' 2621 SE 16th Sf Rehton, WA98058,' Community & Economic Development Department , ' 'c.E."Cnip':Vincent, Administrator, ~UBJECT: RESERVE ATTIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER lUA13,O01572, pI', ECF DearMs;Thorkildson: , Thank YOll for '~our comments ~elated 'to the Reserve at. Tiffany Pa;k; dated August '8,' 2014, "wherein you raised'con'cerrisregarding: traffic, the 124th ' entrance,drainage, trees, access, " schools; wetland, lot size,pedestria~s; open space; 'and construction mitigation. Your letter will , be' added to the ,public record forconsider~tion by the reviewin'g offic,;al and you have been ~dded as a party of record:" ' ' "" ',To address your concer'~s the applicant wiH be required to complywith the City's deveiopment :nig~la,tions >as, well, as Washington State's En~ironmer\tal Policy" (~EPA)whiCh,inciudes ',' niquirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. ' . . . .' . ,,' , ' , , The City ~iiLreview' the proposal ,with regard to the protection of valuableenvirorimental amenities and to ensure thedevelopmeilt i's as compatible' as possible with the' ecological - , 'balance' of the: area: The goals of, the City are to pr~5erve drainage patterns, :'protect ground":'ater suppiy; prevent erosion and to weserite trees and natural Veget~tion. Additionally, -the applicant is required to demonstrate properprovisions'foi-all public facilities (including, access,circulation, utilities;and services). " ' " . Public commentsique~tions o'n the propo~ai will be used along with the information provided by . the applicant ,and the independent studies' to inform our review and recommendations to the 'Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. TheCity will be speCifically' addressing.all of the pubiic's comments in, twci separate reports (Emiironrnental Review Report , and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of ,record. ," ,', ,',' '", '" ,,:'.: ,', ",', ",',,", ',' '. , I hope 'this letter ~ddresses your concerns and provides ~ouwith the' information to better engage in our' upcoming public process,' 'If you have any further questions please feel free to • contact ine at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa'.gov. Thimk'you. "'," .. '. ," .. . . . . . . ,o~enm ", , ,"', :'sen' rPlanner :,' ,',", RenionCity HaiL, 1 055 South GradyWay" Re~ion,washington 98057 • rent~nwa.gov" " .Denis Law.' Mayor September 19, 2014 David & Renate Beedon . 1725 Pierce Av",SE . Renton, WA 98058 · . . . . . , . Community & Economic Development Department .. '., CE."Chip"Vincent, Adrilinistrator · .SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARKCOMMENT RESPONSE LETtER LUA13-00157:Z, PP,Eq · . [)ear.David,& Renate Beedon: .. ' Thank you for your. comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated 'August 8, 2014 .' wh'ereiri yoy' both raised con'cerris regarding: parking on 1!i'", traffic, wildlife, drainage, trees, • · wetlands! property~alues, aquifer, wetland mitigatio~, c~nstruction' mftigation, and slope . · visibility. Your letters will be added to .the public record for consideration by the. reviewing . official and you have been addedasa'party of record.' .' ..... To address your conce~ns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development . regulations. as ,well. as. Washington State's' Environmental Policy. (SEPA)' which. includes . . .... requirements for mitigation for impacts i:aused by the de~~lopment. The City will review the, proposal with .regard to' the. protection' of~aluable environmental . . amenitiesa'ndtci ensure the., development is as compatible as possible with tlie 'ecological' balance of :the area, The .. goals:of :the City are to preserve drainage 'patterns, protect 'groundw~ter s~pply, prevent erosion~nd t~ pres~rve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally,. . the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions, for all public facilities (including· . . access, circ~latio'n, utilities,.and services): . .... .... .' -, . Public com'ments7qu'estions on the 'proposal will be used alongwith the information provided by. the applisantand the independent studies. to inform our review and. recomme~dations to: the'" Environme·ntal. Review Committee and the City's Hearing Exa·riiiner. The City \Nill bespecificaily addressing all·of the public's comments 'in two .separate reports (Environmental Review Report a~d .·Hearing Examiner Rec~rrimendation Report) that will be sent .out to all of. the par1:i~s of. ~~~. .' . I hope this. letter. addresses your conc~rns a~d. provic.tes you .with the information to better engage in our u'pcoming pulilicprotess .• If you have any further questions please feel free to' '. contact me at 425-430-7219 orrtimmons@rent6riwa:gov. Thank you. ' .. .' ' . '. , -.'. . . .,: ' . ... ~~ . ~:t; Planner .' '. .. ". '. RentonCity Hall' • 1 ass South Grady Way • Re~ton, Washi~gto~ 980si • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 • Robin and Miatke Jones 3624 SE 19TH CT Renton, WA 980S8 Community and Economic Development Department C. E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LmER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding notice and DNS. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy {SEPAl which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 42S-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~:~~ Planner Renton City Hall· 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law ~ayor September 19, 2014 Phillip and Tammy Schaefer 3301 SE 20th Ct ' Renton, WA 98058 . . , -. -. Community,& Economic Development Depariment" " , " ',' , C.E:Chip"l!incetit, Administrator' ': SUBJECT: ' RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER' , LUAi3,0Ol572, PP, ECF . ",-." " .. Dear Mr, and Mrs, Schaefer: , .:' Thank you for your comments related to the ReserVe'at Tiffany Park; dated,August 5' and,August " ,8, 2014 wherein you both raised concerns regarding: traffic, drainage, sch.ool~, pr~pertV values, wetland'mitigation,' and, impact fees,' Your letters will be ,added to, the,public record for ,consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party6f record, ' . . -. .". . , . 'Toaddress your concerns tile appli~ant will be required to comply with' the, Citjs develppment ' regulations as well as washington State's Environmental',PoiiC',i (SEPAl which i~c1udes' requirements.for mitigation for imp~cts caused by the development. " Th~ CitY willrevie~ the proposal With regardto the protection ofvaluabiE~ ~nviron~ental amenities and to erisure the deveiopment is as compatible as possible ,with the ecological' balance of the ,area,'The goals of the, City' are ,to 'preserve' d'rainage 'patterns, ,'protect: , groundwatersupply, pr~vimt erosion iuid to preserVe trees and riatural vegetation, Additionally, , : the applicant is required to deinonstnite, proper provisions f()r all public facilities '(including, 'access, Circulation, utilities,and services),' ' , , Public comments/questions ~n the proposaL""ili be used along with theinfcirma, tionpro,'vided by " the applicant a'nd the 'independent studies to inform ourreview'and recommendations to the snvirohmental Review,Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner, The City will be,specifically , addressing all of the publicis comments in two sep'arate reports (Environmental Review Report' and Hearing ExarriinerRe~ommendation' Report) ihatwill he sent out to all of the parties.of ~~ , " , , I hope, thislette~ addressj!s your 'concerns and provides you with ,the information to, better engage in our upcoming public process, If you have any further questions please feel free to' contact meat425-430-72190r rtimmons'@rentonwa,gov; Thankyou,' " ' . . . ,'-, -. . . '. . '.' " -. :" - i~~~ '~~t~ Planner :', ' , ," , , "'" ,Renton City Hall • , 055 South G;ady Way. Renton, Washington 9805h rentonw~,gov ". ; Septembe; 19,2014-Community & Economic Development Department- , , -C.E."Chip"Viricent,Administrator , Larry Gbrg ''' 1800 Lake Youngs Way SE' Renton,WA980S8, ' -.' ... -' ,SUBJECT: RESERilEATTIFFANVPARicOMMENTRESPbNSE LETrER LUA13-001572; PP,ECF Dear,Mr.,Gorg: Thankyou for your comments related ,to the Reserve a(Tiffany'Park; dated August 7, 2014' wherein you raised, concerns rega_rding: notice;" access, Ieit size, wetlands,andwetland mitigatiorl. Your letter will. be added to the public record for 'consideration by the reviewing official andyoiJ have been added as a partY of record. '" .' ',. -'. , To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the Ci~y's development' 'regulations ~s well as ,Washington ~tate's ErlVironmental 'Policy (SEPA) which includes , -requirements for mitigatiori.for impacts caused by the developme'nt. ' ,- ." r . _ The City will" review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental ,amenities,and-to' ensure the develqpment is as compatible ,as possible with, the -ecol~gical ' bal~nce of ihearea." The goals of, the City 'a~eto, prese~e drainage patterns,' Protect , 'groundwater supply,prevent erosion and to preserve trees and riat~ralyegetation. Additionally, ,the applicant is required to:, demonstrate 'properprovisions for allJ)ublic facilities (iriclu'ding access"circulation, utilities! and services).' ' , , , 'Public comments/questions on th~proposal willb~used al~~g with the information pro;i<led by , , the applicant and the'independent studies to inform our review ~md re'commehdations, to, the-," Environmental ReviewComrriitteeandtlieCity's-HearingExaminer . The City will be,speCifically addresslngall o(the public's, comments in two se-parate reports (E~vironmental Review Report , ' , and Hearing -Examiner Recommendation Rep-ort) that will be sent ouno all of the parties of' " record, • I hope ,this letter addresses your corlCerns an'd provides you with the information to better:, engage in 'our upcoming public process. if you have any further questions please feel free to ~onta:ct me at 4is'430'7219 'or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov:Thankyou. -' ' " , Sincer~~, ~,'. ,,f " '. ' ,~~~. : ~~t~ Plan~er "',,. ',' ", " ", Renton CitY Hall, 1055 South Grady Way ,Benton, Washington 98057; rentonwa.goi'- '; , . Denis Law Mayor September 19,2014 Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E. ·Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LEITER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Smith: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 1, August 7, and September 10, 2014, wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, wildlife, drainage, trees, wetlands, noise, pedestrians, property values, and construction mitigation. Your letters will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the ·information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~;t~ Planner . Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Elizabeth Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E.-Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Frisch: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 7, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, trees, wetlands, schools, denSity, and pedestrians. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~~t; Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov " ... - Denistaw ,'.' Mayor .. Septemlier19,2014 , Community & Economic DevelopmentDepartment , , C.E:Chip:'Vincent, Administrator , ja'neWorden 15624 1i9th PI SE ' Remton,WA 98058 , SUBJECT: , RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTE,R LUA13'001572;PP, ECF , , bear Ms. Worden;. Thank you for yourcommentsrelatedtothe Reserve~t Tiffany p~rk; datedAugus~ 7,~(114" " 'wherein you, .raised ,concerns regarding: traffic, trees, ,wetlands, schools,lot, size, and , qlllstruction mitigation. ,Your letter will be added',to the public record for consideration by the, reviewing officialandyouhave been added asa party of record.'" " -. . . .. '. -" To address you'r concerns the, applicant will be,required to. comply with the City's delielopment regulations as, w'ell as' Washington ,State's' Environmental Policy (SEPAl' whiCh includes requirements formitigationfor impaCts caused by the development. " The City w'ilirevieyV the, proposal with regard to tile protection:of valuable environmental 'amenities and toensur~' the development i~-as compatible as, possible' with the 'ecological, balance of the ,area.' The goals' of the City ,are to preserve drainage patterns, protect' . , groundwater supply, prevent erosion and 'to pres~rve trees and,natural vegetation. Additionally, , ttie applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (inCluding, , access; circulation, utilities, and services). ' ' , " , , Public comments/questions on th~ proposalwill be used along with the inforh,ation provid~d by', ,,'. the applicant and the ind~pendentstudies to'inform ourreliiew and ,recommendatioris to' the 'Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing' Examiner: The,City will be specifically' 'addressing all of the public's comments in two 'separate reports (EnvironmentaIRe~iew Report ' and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) ,that will'be sent out 'to all of the parties of , record, ", ' , ' " , ' " I hope this letter addr~ssesyour concerns and prqvides you-withthe information to better' ' engage in ~urupcoming public process. Ifyouha~e any further questions please feel ,free to ' contact me at425-430-72i9o~ itimmons@rentonwa,gov.Thimkyou, ' , . . . . . . . .' . . ,," RentonCity Hali ; 1 055 SouthGr~dy Way ; Renton, Washington98057 • rentoriwa.Qov " .. ...• --------------- Denis Law . Mayor •• September'19,2014 .. ' Ccim~unity & Economic Development Department .. . . . ,C.E."Chip·Vincent, Adminisirator . ", .~ · Robert & Cynthia'. Gailough '3203 SE 18th St' . Renton; WA 98058 SUBJEcT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE (mER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF . Dear Mr. imd Mrs. Garlough: . ,. Thank you for your .comments rel.ated to the Reserve atTift.iny Park; dated Aug~st 6 andAugust 8, 2014 wherein you both raised concerns regarding: notice, parking on·18th,traffic;. wildlife, . · drainage,tn!es/access; noise, schools,property'values, aquifer, and wetland' mitigation. Your .. letters will· be .added to the' public record for co~sideration by the reviewi~gbfficiaL and you have beenadded as:a party of record. . .' . . . . .' .... ,', To .. address yourwncern$ the applicant willb~'~equired to comply iNith the CitY's de~elo'pment regulations as well 'as'Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigationfor impaCts caused'b'y the develop~ent'" . · The City will review the propoial with regard to the protection Of valuable. environmental , amimitiesand to :ensure the. development is 'as compatible' as possible. withJhe ·ecological. · b~lance. ~f' th~ . area. The go<ilsof ·!tie CitY are to preserye.drainage patterns, protect : . groundwater supply,prevent erosion arid to preserve trees'and natlJralvegetation~.Ai:lditionally, the 'applicant is. required to, demonstrate proper prov'isions for. all public facilities (including .' access, circulation,utilities, and services). ' .... .. Public comments/questions on the proposal will be usedalongwith the information p~ovidedby the applicant and the iQdependent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the .. · Environmental Review Committee and the CitY's Hearing Examiner .. The city will bespecifical.iy .' addressing all of the public's comments in' two separate reports (Environmental Review. Report · and Hearing Examiner Recorrimendation Report) that will be sent out to. all of the' parties of · record.' . . .' . ' .. I hope this letter . addresses your-concernsand' provides YO'u:with the· information to bett~r . engage in pur lipcomi"rig public process: 'If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425"430,7219'or rtiinrhbns@ren·tonwa.gov. Thank you.' . .. ~Since:e~IY' . . ..••. '. • ... . ....... '.~ .. . , .,... oca e Tim . ' '. , .. ' ... '. . .. . Sen'. rPlanner " .... . '. -' -,,~ .. Renton City Hall;. 1055 South GradyWay' ,'Renton,Washington 98057 ' rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Rockas: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding traffic. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. -&~~ ~:~~ Planner Renton City Hall • '055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Alaine Ikuta 1709 Pierce Ave SE Renten, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E."Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Ikuta: Thank yeu fer yeur comments related te the Reserve at Tiffany Park; 9ated August 8, 2014 wherein yeu raised cencerns regarding: traffic, trees, wetlands, neise, and censtructien mitigatien. Yeur letter will be added te the public recerd fer censideratien by the reviewing .official and yeu have been added as a party .of recerd. Te address yeur cencerns the applicant will be required te cemply with the City's develepment regulatiens as well as Washingten State's Environmental Pelicy (SEPA) which includes requirements fer mitigatien fer impacts caused by the develepment. The City will review the prepesal with regard te the protectien .of valuable environmental amenities and te ensure the develepment is as cempatible as pessible with the ecelegical balance .of the area. The geals .of the City are te preserve drainage patterns, protect greundwater supply, prevent eresien and te preserve trees and natural vegetatien. Additienally, the applicant is required te demenstrate proper provisiens fer all public facilities (including access, circulatien, utilities, and services). Public cemments/questiens en the propesal will be used aleng with the infermatien previded by the applicant and the independent studies te inferm .our review and recemmendatiens te the Envirenmental Review Cemmittee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all .of the public's cemments in twe separate reperts (Environmental Review Repert and Hearing Examiner Recemmendatien Repert) that will be sent .out te all .of the parties .of recerd. I hepe this letter addresses your cencerns and provides yeu with the infermatien te better engage in .our upceming public precess. If yeu have any further questiens please feel free te centact me at 425-430-7219 .or rtimmens@rentenwa.gev. Thank yeu. ~~~ ;~f~ Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 John Knutson 300 SW 7th St Renton, WA 98057 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LEITER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Knutson: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding schools and trespassing. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's ,development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect ,groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be speCifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219'or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~~t~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South GradyWay • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov . . DenisLa~ .' . May~r September 19,2014. James & MaryHaber' 1716 MOnroe Ave SE . . Henton, WA98058 • Community & Economk Development Department . . '. C.E."Chip"Vinc~nt,Administrat~r SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LmER LUA13c001572, PI', ECF Dear Mr.and Mrs. Haber: Thank you for yo~r comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated AugustS, 2014. wh~rein you r<jis~d concerns· re'garding: dr~inage, access, and construction mitigation,. Your lette; will be added to the public:record.forconsideraticin by the reviewing official and you have .been.added as a party of record. .' . . . ';Toaddress your concerns,the applica~t will be required to comply with the City's cie~elopment regulations asweH,'as Washington. St~te'SEnvironmental policY:(SEPA) which. includes ,.' , .' requiremeritsformitigatiori for impacts c'aused by the development. . . . . . ,-' "-, ",'. -.' , . The City will reyiew tne proposal' ~ith r~gard to the protection 0; valuable environmental amenities and to'ensure the devel6pmentis as' compatible as pos'sible with the ecologkal balance of the. area., The goals of· the city areta, preserVe drainage 'patterns,: protect groundwater supply/prevent erosi6n and to preserVe trees and naturalliegetation; Additionally,. '. tile applicant is required to demonstrate. proper provisions for all public facilities (including access; circulation, utilities; and services), ' .... .' . .' --. . P~blic comments/questions ontheproposalwillbeusedalong with the information pro~ided by:.' '. the. applicant and the 'independent studies to inform our review' and 'reconimendations to the' EnvironmentaLReview Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will tie speCifically . addressing all of the public's comnientsintwo separate reports (Environmental Review Report .. ' , and Hearing Examiner Recom'mendation Report) .that iNiU ,be sent ,out to an of the parti~s of ' record: . I hope this letter addresses your,.concerns ~ndpro~ides you ~ith~he in'formation to better' ' engage in our upcQmingpublicprocess.,lf yciu haveany'further'qu'estibns please feel free to contact me at 425-430'7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.go~,Tharik you.' ' . ••.. ~~ '. ~~t~ Planner' .........• " Renton City Hall •. 1055 South Gra~y Way. Renton, ';"aShington 98057. rentonwa.gov ' . ', .. ,' · Septem,ber 19i 2014' Belinda Mathers .280'6 SE 16th St Renton, WA98058 Community & Economic Development Department'· '. .. . C.E,"Chip"Vincent, Administrator · SUBJECT: . RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER' LlJA13:001572, PP, ECF . . . Dear Ms; Mathers:' : Thank ,you for yourcom;;'eritsrelat~d to' the Reserve at :nffany Park; dat~d August 6 and .' ,September 9, 2014 wherein you raised concerns . regarding: 'traffic,' wetlan'ds, schools,. pedestrians, lot size, and density. Your letter will be' added to the public record forconsid~ratibn ' by thereviewingofficiaLandyou hav'ebeen adpedas a party of record: . To address your concerns' the applicant will be. require~ to cornplywiththecity'~ development · regulations 'as well as Washington ' State's Environmental' Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for niitigationforimpactscaused by the:developmimt. " ... ' The City will review the proposal with regard 'tothe'prot~ctio'nofvah-,ableeriviro~rnental' amenities and to ensure'. thede'velopment is a.scqmpatible as possible with the.' ecologital , . balance' o( the area. The goals, of the City'~re to ·preservedraihage patt,erns, protect · groundwater supply, preyenterosion and to preserve trees and n~tur~1 vegetatiop. Additionally, the applicant ,is required to demonstrate proper provisions for' all public faCilities (including access, circulation, utilities, ilridse'r'vices); .' . . ' . Publicc~mm~nts/questi~ns On ;i,eproposal will be u;edalongwithtneinforrnaticin provided by thea pp i.1Cant and theindependel1t stUdies to inform our review and recommendations to the' '.-. · EnvironmentalReviewCom'mitteeand the CiW's Hearing Examiner.' The CitY will be specifically addressing all of the public's' comments in two separate' reports (Environmental Review 'Report and 'Hearing' Examine'r Recommendation Report) that 'will be sehi out to all of the parties of . record. ,~I hope this',lette'r addresses .your concerns'ahdp;ovides you with the information to ,better engage in our upcomingptiblic process: . If you have any further questions please f~el free to ., contact me at 425~430-j2.19 or rtimmo·ns@rEiritonwa.gov:Thank you. ' '. o •••• ". ' .-~SincereWIY', .,' " ... " ... '.,',.' ....... '~ .. . · oca e:nm . ". ..' .,. " · Sen' r Plan~er .'..' .' .'. " . . R~nton ci;y Hall.10sS Sou~h ~radY Way ~ Renton, Washington 980S7 .rentonwa,gov DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Fawcett: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 10, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding wildlife and noise. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy {SEPAl which· includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be speCifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~;~~ Planner Renton City Hall. , 055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Helen Pacheco • 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Pacheco: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 10, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: noise, schools, property values, pedestrians, compatibility, and construction mitigation. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~~~; Planner Renton City Hall • 'OSS South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 980S7 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Jay Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E. 'Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Ahlbeck: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 12, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding drainage and trees. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. 1 hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ;~~~ Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Higgins: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated September 9, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding traffic and schools. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ::s,~ ~~t; Planner RentonCityHaU. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington98057. ,entonwa.gov " Denis Law . ~ayor Septembe(19,2014 Daniel Goldm'ari, " 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton,WA '98058 ' Community & Economic Development D'epartment 'C.E':'Chi p"Vi nee nt, Ad miilistrator , -,' SUBJECT: , RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER" LUA13-001572, PP,ECF ,,"" Dear Mr. Goldman:, Thank you for your comments related to the Rese~e at Tiffa~y, Park; dated September 9; 20~4 ' , . wherein you raised, concerns r~garding traffic andconsiruction'mitigation. Your letter will be ~ added to the public record for consideration 'by the reviewing official <indyou hill/e been added " , as apartyof record. " " To address your cOncerns the applicant will berequiredto.comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington state's Environmental, Po'liCY '(SEPAl which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. . . . , . , ' ' . , , The City WilirevieviUhe:prop~sal with ~ reg~rd to the, prCitedion of valuable environmental , amenities and ,to. ensure the development ,is as compatible as'possible' with' the' eCological balance of the area. The'goals of the City ani to preserve drainage, patterns, protect groundwaier supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees,and natur~1 vegetation, Additionally, theapplitant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all pubiicfacilities (including , , access, Circulation, utilities;and serviCes). " ' " , Publiccomm~ntsiquestions on the proposal will be,used along with the inf~rm~ltionprovided by the applicant and the independent studie's to inform 'ourrev,iewa~d recommendations to the, ,. EnVironmental, ReviewCommittee a'nd the C]ty's'Hearing Examiner. TheCitywilitie specifically, addressing all of the public's comments in'two sepilrate.reports (Environmental Review Report',', andHeari~g' Examiner Recommendation Report) ,that' wiil. be sent but tei all of the parties of • ~~~:' , ' , " , " ' , I hope this'lelter addresses your concerns and provides you witht~e i~formation to b~tter engage in our upComing, public process., If you have any further questions please' feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtirririlO~s@rentonwa.gov:Tharik yo'u. ' ' " , R~nton City Hall • ioSS South Grady Way • Renton, washiri9t;~ 98057. rento~wa,gov . . , . . '. Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Rachael Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton, WA 98058 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E.·Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LEITER LUA13-001S72, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Bell: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, wildlife, schools, and property values. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City'S development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~ ~;f; Planner Renton City Hall· 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonw •. gov ~---------------~ DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E:Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LmER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones: . Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 6, August 7, and September 15, 2014, wherein you both raised concerns regarding: traffic, drainage, access, wetlands, noise, schools, construction mitigation, and wetland mitigation. Your letters will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~~t~ Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2014 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 • Community and Economic Development Department C. E. "Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LmER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Donnelly: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 4, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: drainage, trees, noise, wetlands, and construction mitigation. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's. Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services); Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ~~~ ~;~~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DenisLaw • Mayor September 19, 2014 Susanne Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E. ·Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LmER LUA13-001572, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Swanson: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 6, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding wildlife. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services). Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City's Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record. I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. :s.~~ ~~t; Planner Renton City Han • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • ,entonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor '. September 19, 2014 Lanissa Youngquist 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Community and Economic Development Department C. E.·Chip·Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA13-00157Z, PP, ECF Dear Ms, Youngquist: Thank you for your comments related to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated August 8, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding: traffic, noise, schools, pedestrians, park space, and wetland mitigation, Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record, To address your concerns the applicant will be required to comply with the City's development regulations as well as Washington State's Environmental Policy (SEPA) which includes requirements for mitigation for impacts caused by the development. The City will review the proposal with regard to the protection of valuable environmental amenities and to ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals of the City are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Additionally, the applicant is required to demonstrate proper provisions for all public facilities (including access, circulation, utilities, and services), Public comments/questions on the proposal will be used along with the information provided by the applicant and the independent studies to inform our review and recommendations to the Environmental Review Committee and the City'S Hearing Examiner. The City will be specifically addressing all of the public's comments in two separate reports (Environmental Review Report and Hearing Examiner Recommendation Report) that will be sent out to all of the parties of record, I hope this letter addresses your concerns and provides you with the information to better engage in our upcoming public process. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa,gov. Thank you, ~~~ ~~f~ Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ,1 September 16,2014 Renate Beedon, President Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Dear Ms. Beedon, • j RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 Board of Directors This is in reply to your request presented to the Renton School Board at its September 10th meeting seeking permission to bring an independent wetland specialist onto the district's Tiffany Park . undeveloped property for additional wetlands review .. Superintendent Rieger denied a similar request on August 8,2014, citing the wetlands studies previously . submitted by the purchaser and the fact that those studies and additional information requested by the City of Renton meet the requirements of the City as they work through the review and approval process. Dr. Rieger's reply referred to the purchase and sale agreement that was approved by the School Board on May 22, 2013, noting that the agreement authorizes the purchaser to assess the property's suitability for the intended development, and to take steps to obtain the necessary approvals in compliance with City of Renton ordinances and regulations. The purchaser has proceeded to do so, at considerable expense for the planning and studies required by the City. The studies submitted are subject to review and approval by City staff and by the hearing examiner, who will evaluate them in light of state and local environmental and development standards. The decisions resulting from this process are also subject to appeal, as explained by City staff at the community meeting held on September 9th , so that any perceived deficiencies in the existing studies can be appealed as part of the City's review process. In addition to granting certain rights to the purchaser, the purchase and sale agreement formalized the School Board's intent to sell the property, consistent with the School Board's duty to act in the best interest of the entire district. In doing so, the agreement created an obligation for the Board to cooperate with the purchaser as it seeks to obtain the required permits. To do otherwise could put the purchaser's investment at risk, and could conceivably create a financial liability to the Renton School District. For the above reasons, after due consideration of your request, the School Board denies your request to access the property for additional independent wetlands study. Lynn DeSmarais, President Renton Sehool Board Launching L6aming to Last a Lifetim6 r-__ ---::~~300~SOUthwest 7th Street Renton. Washington 98057-23071 p.425.204.2340 1 f.425.204.2456 1 _____ lr:l'iilWJ® www.rentonschools.us. RECEIVED 09/1212014 rtimmons • Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAGj Septem ber 10, 2014 Renton, WA 980S8 Renton-opposites@comcast.net Subject: Permission to bring an independent wetland specialist on to the property owned by the Renton School District, LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP CAR Ref.: Correspondence with Dr. Merri Rieger, Superintendent, August 6, 2014. and August 8, 2014 Ms. President and members of the Renton School Board: We hereby request permission from the Renton School Board to bring an independent wetland specialist onto the subject property to review the wetlands therein. The reason for this request to the School Board is the denial by the Superintendent to allow us to bring our own wetland specialist onto the property. We feel that this denial is unreasonable. Please notify me of your decision regarding this request by September 16, 2014 or earlier as we are running out of time to provide our findings to the City of Renton's Environmental Process. Sincerely, Renate Beedon, President, TPWAG City of l"> PI " nenton annmg 0" " IVlsion S[fJ ] .~ 2011 ; ,I 'Denis Law Mayor August 20, 2014 ' Ecc,no,micDevelopment Department " C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator , . ----,-'-----'-_._-'", , Wayne PO,tter ' Novastar Dev Inc 18215 72nd Ave 5,' ,Kent, WA 98032 i I " ' , SUBJECT: , "On Hold" Notice, ,Reserve at TIffany Park/ LUA13-o01572, ECF, PP • Dear Mr. Potter: The Planning Division cfthe City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on November 25, 2013:· Duri~g our review, staff determined additiorial information was necessary in order'to proceed ~nd placed :the project o~ 'hoid. The applicant submitted all requested' materials, a revised Prelimin1lry Plat, and revised supporting documents on July 15, 2014, On' July 25,20i4 the project was taken off hold and~ second courtesy two-week public comment., period commenced arid ended on August 8, 2014." During our review of the revised preliminary' plat, staff has determined that additional information is necessarY in order to proceed further, ..,. ' . " RMC 4-4-130 requires 30% oton-site trees be retained in an R-8 zon'ed residential development. Replacement trees "are on'ly permitted :when ,the required 'number of protected trees cannot be retained, In order to promote land development' practices that result 'in minimal adverse 'disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within 'the. City the applicant shall provide' the following: ' ' , , , " • Revised Arborist Report andTree'Ret~ntion Plan: Please provide 5 co'pies of a revised,' Arborist Report and Tree Retention Plan which includes the retention of at least 30% of , protected ,trees 0'0 sit~ (the City excludes those trees :within proposedright-bf-way, critical 'areas/buffers; and dead, diseased, or dangerous trees for the purpose's of calculating the,retentio'n of trees), ", o Replacement trees shall not be used to meet tree retention requirements unless , , the applicant is able to d~monstrate 'the required number of protected trees : ca'nnot'be retained. Should the applicant clioose to use replacement trees to ---'. ," . comply with tree retention requirements ttie Administrator' may require ,independent ~eview, The independent review would analyze the effectiven~ss 'of any proposed' removal, 'retention; or ,replacement measures, to include recommendations as appropriate" This re~iew would be paid for ,by' the' applicant and the City shall select'the third:party reviev:, professional. ' , , ,0 Additionally, the arborist report shalldemonstratethilt retained trees will not " . '., ' " . \".' 'create or contribute to a hazardous condition as the result of blowdown, insect ' or pest infestatiqri; disease, or ,other problems'that may·be c~eated as p resu'lt of ' selectively removing trees and other 'vegetation from the site, " ' c -Renton City'Hall • lOS,S S~uth Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98.057 • r~nton.wa.gov -........ , ; Wayne Potter " , Page 2 0(2 • .' '\ ,At this time, your project has been' placed "on' hold" pending receipt of the requested, inforrr;ation:' The ~equested information will ri~ed to besubrnitted before N~vember 20, 2014 so ,that w,e m~y continue the review of the' above subject applitation, ' " ' Pleas~: note as, a resuitof public engagement the City held:a courtesy 14-day' public comment' , period which ended on August 8, 2014. 'While 'w'e will not hold another formal 14-day public comment"period"'th~ City, will, be holding a 'community, meeting' prior to making 'an 'Environmental 'SEPA' determination and a staff recommepdatiori to the Hearing Examine~ for' the public hearing (date to be determined), Tlfe community meeting notice will be sent out to ail . ,parties of record, properties located within '600 'feet of the subject site, and ,posted in' ,'conspicuous places surrounding thes'ubject site in adVance of'the meeting,,' , ' • l" Please contact me ,at (425):430:7219 should you have imy questions." . '., , . , Sin'cerely,: " , , ' , ~".' , .. i '~" " "~' Ro Ie Timmons '" ' " " , Senior Planner' '" cc: Owner(s) Applicant Party(i~sj of Record , ' ,'. '. ~'- (' ': , , , , ': . .. . ' ", - • ,-• '.. MAlNVrn='" August 6, 2014 Rocale Timmons City of Renton HOMES CED -Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Re: SEPA Comments -Tiffany Park Reserve -LUA13-00l572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Ms. Timmons: As you know, we are the applicant for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Subdivision, LUA13-00l572 ("Henley"). I was pleased to see that the August 25 date for ERC consideration of the project has been set, and that the following proposed/sample SEPA DNS-M conditions were listed in the City's Notice, dated July 25,2014: • The applicant will be required to protect valuable environmental amenities and ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area . .. ,'" • The applicant will be required'tei 'provide adequate mitigation for Transportation Impacts. I am concerned that members of the public, who are not accustomed to the permitting and SEP A process, might question what those general conditions really mean. Provided below is a set of conditions that address, in more specific terms, the mitigation associated with wetlands, trees, and traffic, as reflected in the expert reports for the project. I presume you will be preparing conditions to propose to the ERC and that these general conditions may be 'part of that. Instead of the general conditions stated in the City's July 25 Notice, we think it may be more appropriate if the City were to impose the following specific conditions: I. WETLANDS a. b. RECFIVED AUG 0 8 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION The five on-site wetlands A, B, C, D, imd E, shall be undisturbed and shall be protected via location within designated Open Space Tracts. Impacts to wetland buffers for the five on-site wetlands shall be mitigated pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, including. buffer averaging in the locations described in the revised buffer averaging plan and \vetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz dated February 28, 2014 and amended June 3, 2014. In addition, and as described in those reports, a permanent buffer impact to Wetland E of 14 square feet is associated with the required road extension of SE 18th Street, and under RMC 4-3- I02613283.DOCX;l I 11100 Main Street. Suite 100 Bellevue WA 98004 I PHONE: 425-646-4022 I FAX: 425-646-4024 I MAINVUEHOMES.COM r------------------------------------------------------ Rocale Timmons August 6, 2014 Page 2 • 050.C.5.e.ii, that small impact is exempt under the Specific Exemptions-Critical Areas and Buffers, for "the construction of new trails, streets, roads, rights-of-way and associated appurtenances, facilities and utilities where no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed other than the minimum alteration and! or fill needed ... " c. Temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities around the perimeter of wetland buffers are allowed subject to restoration with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and planting of native species, thus bringing the impacted areas to similar or better conditions than what existed prior to construction. Prior to construction, specific vegetation in the temporary buffer impact areas shall be noted, so that appropriate vegetation is planted in the restoration areas. d. Although mitigation is not required by City Code for the 14 square feet of wetland buffer impact associated with the extension of SE 18 th Street, as a further mitigation measure, the use of wetland buffer averaging across the entire project site shall result in a larger overall total wetland buffer area, than the amount of buffer area that would be set by Renton Municipal Code for wetlands A, B, C, D, andE. 2. TREE PROTECTION a. Based on the current site plan, the Applicant is proposing to retain 147 significant trees within 10 open space tracts, and plant a total of246 replacement trees. This tree protection plan coupled with 72 additional trees in the wetlands and buffers will substantially preserve the forested character of the area. The precise number of trees to be retained and to be replanted is subject to change due both to the passage of time and due to minor changes during engineering design, review, and construction. b. A list of techniques for tree protection, pruning and thinning, and hazard tree inspection is included in the Final Tree Protection Plan, prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated June 6, 2014; at the time of construction, one or more of those techniques shall be followed, as necessary, to minimize impacts to significant trees. 3. TRAFFIC {026IJ28JDOCX;1 I a. A stop sign and stop bar shall be installed on southbound Monroe Avenue SE at SE 18 th Street. b. A stop sign and stop bar shall be installed on southbound I 24th Place SE at SE 158 th Street. c. The City's Transportation Impact Fee amount shall be paid at the time set by City Code. " . Rocale Timmons August 6, 2014 Page 3 • • Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, .. -~ Barbara Yarington cc: Wayne Potter {02613283.DOCX;1 I MAINVm: HOMES 11100 Main Street. Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 ':::;!:: .. 1~1 f'"l"I.t:. ". :t>JlY )~,_~;~:!f} :-07 :;,4t,:i{;-!'t~:;· ·;p~t_;.S l Rocale Timmons City of Renton CED -Planning Division lOSS S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 cS-~$Pos~ §~~ n -I~~~ ~ '='PITNEY 80WE$ 02 1P $ 000.48° 0003935639 AUG 07 2014 MAILED FROM ZIPCODE98004 • ga05?323255 III' III iii I I I I, III Ii, ,II Ii 1'" 11'111 ill' I I j Iii I I' jl I" I III' j, 'II' J .., City of Rim Department of Community & Economic Dl,pment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 8, 2014 APPLICATION NO: LUA13-001572 DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 25,2014 APPLICANT: Wayne Potter, Novastar PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Tiffany Park Reserve PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 945,252 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): LOCATION: SE 18th & 124'h PL SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) SHEET SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requested SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 98'lot subdivision on November 14, 2013. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on November 25, 2013. During our review, staff determined additional information was necessary in order to proceed. On December 16, 2013 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a Habitat Data Report and Independent Secondary Review of the provided Critical Area Report and Traffic Study. The applicant has submitted all necessary information in order to proceed. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision. The 21.7 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 97 lots would result in a density of 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10-feet in width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th PI SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant is proposing to retain the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into an eXisting wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, Habitat Data Report, and Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands with the application. Access to the site would be gained from 5E 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th PI SE. Internal residential access streets are proposed to provide access to each lot. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant is proposing wetland buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,000 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of approximately 48,000 square feet. The applicant is also requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. December 16, 2013 -Project placed on ~old pending receipt of supplemental information to be provided by the applicant. July 22. 2014 -The project was taken off hold. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary , Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet /j,. v.t7rr ,,. t-& '.b~ IJr.rliYJdnCt 5u7tJ ,J ,/J/) Ii t:...~ , , We have reviewed this application ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additionolinfor ionisneededto roperlyassessthisproposal. 7 -d r .... 11 Date ",.J ,' .. B. POLICY-RELATEOCOMMENTS of",; "---------llr-------- C. COOE-RELA TEO COMMENTS icular attention to those areas in which we h eded to properly assess this proposal. ave expertise and have identified areas of probable impact SiEsjg~nat~ure~Of-ot.Dir~ect~or o~r A~uth~or2;zed~Re~pr~ese'4nta;.tive~r6::=---1-c:4 ~-[4 Date t- We have reviewed this application with or areas where additional in/armatia IS ==n:==:==----=-~-..-,.--...,..- . __ 100_" ---====--:---_fM_-"", __ .....!::'-" -._- -- • ~~I .NOTIa-OF APPUCAnON '''OFF HOlD" omRMINATlON OF NON_SIGNIACAN~~~GAAND PRO .. __ ..... __ .... _ TED (01 (aDt-....... _"' .. Cltyol..:::=-'''''''-::.::...-.. _ .. _-....... -....,_ .. -........ DATlaI_"'~ lWr1l,m-I .. _ ..... _._01_ .. _ ..... _._of_ .. __ '''''~oI_alI ___ ltISS ... -.................. ~ .... _1hII ........... ""(IIy"'_IE-_O""""~Io.-........ -"'"'"'"'-, ....... _.....,_~lO.'" &Vr~_w.,.cS'r. TIIIIoy_ W ... _WA-.., ~fO',,,, .. ~'ADD"as: ":=-====~== ••• ,".NO, ~----- = - CERTIFICATION I, C~~JJ~.i4~\~C:~· ~ill)2[)M!:21_ hereby certify that 10 copies ofthe above document sted in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the d:;S::dzro ~y:n ~ ~/ZS-!q Signed: ~~g ~ " :c::::::: Date: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that An~ .. \ ~p-\iJ ~q.skom signed this instr\lment and acknowledged it to be his/her/th ir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) j{~ EW#J D Notary (Print): lkl1Ll 'f~e.f5 My appointment expires:-~--,-A,...l.j ...... rQ\.4-~-I-'~"'""'q""'ao>---I--:t----- -.--- • • Agencies See Attached Wayne Potter Contact Henley USA, LLC Applicant Renton School District Owner See Attached Parties of Record See Attached 300' Surrounding Property Owners (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary . mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ~~ ~j .;LO/'! Notary (Print).: ____ ..:.Ikl.!UIk~_;Pl.J::O:>.l"""tt .. :..!K5:...2... __________ _ My appointment expires: ~~f-0lCf., a.,.ol,-( Reserve At Tiffany Park LUA13-001572 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 Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo 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 (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. '" 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office '" Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program '" 4717 W Marginal Way 5W Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division '" Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation'" Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: 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 355110" Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mailstop EST 11W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98004 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.goy ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.goY template -affidavit of service by mailing Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St, 100 Bellevue, WA 98032 (425) 646-4022 Andreas Benson 12633 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 (425) 271-0827 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 BOBBY SENGVILAY 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton, WA 98055 Gayle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Kipepeo Brown 1725 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98055 \.eserve at Tiffany Park· LUA13-001572 PARTIES OF RECORD Wayne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave S Kent, WA 98032 L.R. Riddle 12620 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 (425) 255-0182 ~ James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (425) 271-0147 ~~ John Knutson 300 SW 7th St Renton, WA 98057 (425) 204-2387 p=ml!llllllllllJIIIiII/IIIM Ryan & Jennifer Spencer 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 (425) 271-4653 ~!~#~ Gary Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 Lynn Family 12904 SE 160th St Renton, WA 98058 Maxwel Ligon 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 980S8 Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98057 (425) 277-1302 __ "as Way SE ... I{On, WA 98058 EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (360) 220-2018 ladyjanecody@gmail.com ~L~iIIIJIIIfII8_ Colleen Bowman 2600 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Anthony & Margaret Dean 16917 114th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (425) 255-0225 Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Page 1 of 4 ~ . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~. Silvestre Cesar 2524 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Heidi Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Cynthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton, WA 980S8 Beth Asher 436 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98057-6022 (425) 557-7770 asherforrenton@gmaiLcom Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way S Renton, WA 98058 \eserve at Tiffany Park· LUA13-001572 PARTIES OF RECORD Michael Melanson 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 mmelonson@msn.com 'FSS~ Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 !{;it;~ William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 risingr@integrity.com Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 (425) 917-9769 ~r.JfffIIIIlfIIIIIJI1II!/I. ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 (425) 228-4396 ~-YVONNE BURGESS 15629 129TH Ct SE RENTON, WA 98058 (42S) 226-9372 UtlTfllflmlP'b !'2.~g1I1ecord Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Barbara Smith \ ' 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 barbiandlance@live.com Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (425) 687-7144 Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton, WA 98056 Erik Fisher 12364 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 (206) 914-4427 Maraea Albinia 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 EDMONDS Way SE RENTON, WA 98058-46l3 (425) 277-6518 Robert Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 (425) 227-0090 Page2of4 Donna Thorkildson 2621 SE 16th St Renton, WA 98058 thorkildson3@gmail.com Imogene Graves 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Vicki Hou 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Bob Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 (206) 355-1789 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 (425) 228-4396 Laura Silbernagel Isilbernagel@comcast.net Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Sheryl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-3809 (425) 430-1023 anderson7836@comcast.net -Reserve at Tiffany Park- LUA13-001572 PARTIES OF RECORD ~--Phil Schaefer 3301 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 tgschaefer@aol.com nhJlJjPJ1MJinn4#PM~ ~rSM11J!~_ DAVID BEEDON 1725 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON, WA 98058-4747 (425) 277-0945 davebeedon@comcast.net ~ LARRY GORG 1800 LAKE YOUNGS Way SE RENTON, WA 98058-3812 (425) 237-6490 Rachael Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton, WA 98058 rachael.mandy@USU.edu ~Wi1!i!r!J~ Anita & Patty Phillips 1517 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 patty@getintouchtherapy.com OIM""TfSJ!lJJ'ffJJffl.BfJ".Il •• '. ~:'r!Y;!lf Record~ Lisa cabalquinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH Ct RENTON, WA 98058-4754 (425) 466-5372 running4renton@msn.com Diane Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Pat Velotta 1708 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 dwarfalope@yahoo.com Dennis McClaughlin 1633 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St renton, WA 98058 Laura Kilgore 1825 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 kKarsten Sathre 1706 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 dxswasskb@yahoo.com Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (425) 228-2346 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Ray Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Page 3 of4 ~------------------------ ~I ~eserve at Tiffany Parke LUA13-001572 PARTIES OF RECORD r'!f!v1~~~X_ 'f1fF$M!$t~ Claudia Donnelly Sarah Brendehl 10415 147th Ave SE 2509 SE 16th St Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98058 Delbert Sharp 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 , ;;'"ltJg,~!!~ Frances Roberts Greg & Jenny Swanson 1700 Edmonds Way SE 1819 Ferndale Ave 5 Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98055 (425) 227-0090 Mike Harwood 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98055 Page 4 of 4 .. ________________________________ ----l 2460700760 SHINK BRIAN J+LlNDA C 12910 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700170 WILCOCK H EVERETI+DONNA M 11830 164TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98056 1431600090 TILLETI JARED 12411 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700030 COLSRUD P F 12606 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 1431600040 WALLS JOSEPH A+AMY M LE 12416 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431500450 PEOPLES J L . 15817 124TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431500430 ZHANG LING MIN+MEI FANG LlU 1579 W 68TH AVE VANCOUVER BC V6P2, V4 0 8645520130 KEUM KWANG C+YUN E 3212 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645520210 FAWCETI DOUGLAS E 3207 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645520340 CORGNATI BRIDGET 3221 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 • 1431700190 FERRIER ROBERT W & DIANA M 12613 SE 158TH RENTON, WA 98058 1431700160 MOLLOY J E 12425 E 158TH RENTON, WA 98058 1431600080 FLiNTSCOTI 12405 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700020 MAYNE TODD R+SHANNON C 12430 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431600030 AMUNDSON DOROTHY L 12410 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431500440 GURNER CAROLYN L 12350 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700650 RUT2ER DONALD L+BRENDA J 15701129TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520140 JOHNSON JEFFREY A+DIANNE S 3206 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645520280 INCLAN MANUEL A 3214SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645511010 RICHARDSON PRESLEY H 13056 SE 305TH PL AUBURN, WA 98092 • 1431700180 LATOZKE P L 12605 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431600100 BLACKBURN CATHY 12417 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700040 ROBINSON EVANS N 12612 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700010 BOUCHEZ RAUL ISAAC+CHRISTIAN 12424 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431500460 FISHER MILLARD K 12364 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700660 SWEET NATHAN+DYAMI H 15707 129TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520040 COVARRUBIAS KEIRA & SANTIS 3209 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645520150 MCALISTER DAVID & TANDI 3200 SE 20TH CT RENTON;WA 98058 8645520330 SCHAUSS ROBERT L +KARESA R 3227 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 8645510890 TESFAY HURUY E 1720 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 ,-----~ --~---~-~ I 8645540130 MEYER ROBERT G REVOCABLE LI 1727 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645540060 SCHUG KENNETH 2210 MONTEREY CT SE RENTON, WA 98055 8645530010 RAMIREZ LAZARO VIZCARRA+MARIA DELSOCCORRO 3311 SE 17TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700750 ACUARIO WILSON G 12918 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700690 TRAN BINH+KIM THUC 12906 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98178 8645520080 SWANSON SUSANNE L+ROBERT W 3307 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540220 KOTILA LARRY P 3622 19TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520110 HAUGE KENNETH A 3302 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645520250 AHLBECK JAY G 3328 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 8645540080 OCHO ALBERT+SHARON L 1711 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 ~-------- • 8645540330 YOUNGQUIST EVAN P+LANISSA J 1720 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530070 HERNANDEZ JAVIER G+BARTLETI- GARCIA KRISTINA 1727 OLYMPIC AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530020 SHERRICK RUSSELLJ+JANET M 3317 SE 17TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 2460700710 LEONARD ERIC C 12901 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 1431600020 CLAYTON EDWARD 12404 SE 158TH RENTON, WA 98058 8645540240 HAYES ALBERT TERAN 3615 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540250 BISCONER STACY M+LEONARD W 3611 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 2460700490 GARR BOBBY L & MARY H 15607 129TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98056 8645540160 RIVERA/QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540340 PHETSADA BOONPING+ELlZABETH 1714 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 ------ • 8645510880 WALTON ANNIE T+TRUONG LAC M 1724 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510940 WOLDESELASSIE KITAW M 1702 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700240 LEONARD JEFFREY 12647 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700080 DELPINO J G 12644 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 2460700590 VISKER NICK H 15648 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520100 BRINES DONAVEN 3308 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 2460700500 VAN INGEN STEPHEN M+YOLANDA 15625 129TH CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645520200 JEFFERS GEORGE D R+THELMA S 3201 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645511040 BAKER EDWARD L & SUSAN P 3209 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 8645510830 JOHNSON MICHAELA 1715 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510820 ABHOLD GERALD F 1711 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 2460700770 LYNN STEVEN 12904 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700060 BYRON J E 12628 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645511050 VENIEGAS JORGE S 3215 SE 18TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645510130 ANDERSON SHERYL L 1727 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530090 TRAXINGER BRETT+BROT 1736 OLYMPIA AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510920 JARAMILLO FRANK L 1708 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 8645540050 WHITE STEVEN M+KIM A 1615 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700130 ZELENKA JONATHAN E 12808 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700720 JAKSICH DANILO M+HELGA R 12905 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 • 8645510220 JOHNSON LONNIE M+ TERESA R 3138 SE 17TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 1431700220 BENSON ANDREAS THOMAS+DONNA 12633 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700670 TRAN TIMOTHY H+HUYNH SUNNY 455 BRONSON WAY SE RENTON, WA 98056 8645540120 BEEDON DAVID EUGENE 1725 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 2123059061 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300SW 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645530080 STRICKLAND KENNETH 1742 OLYMPIA AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645530110 COX JAMES J 1724 OLYMPIA AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 2123059040 SEATTLE CITY OF SPU·WTR PO BOX 34018 SEATTLE,WA 98124 1431700210 MOORE ROBERT A 12627 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 2460700730 OBRIEN RICHARD LEE 12909 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 • 8645510930 MOLALIGN ATALELEGN K 1704 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700090 VIGILIA RUFINO A JR 12652 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 8645540190 SIENKIEWICZ HENRYK D 1807 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510860 LUU LOANG+LAN THI NGUYEN ET AL 1732 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510840 JONSON JASON+CLARIZZA 1719 MONROE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510810 REED DAVID N + BARBARA A 5610 NE 10TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 8645530130 POZDNYAKOV IGOR 292 LESLIE CT #A MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 98043 1431700140 TRAN CHAN TRUC 12816 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 1431700110 BURCKHARD RAYMOND M+LYNN L 12666 158TH ST SE RENTON, WA 98058 2460700700 GOOD KIMBERLY J+TERENCE D 12902 SE 158TH PL RENTON, WA 98058 ,----------------------- " 8645520310 ROSEL ESPERIDION M+BEVERLV 3116 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645510210 TO PHEAP+NHEP VAN 3121 SE 17TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 1431700100 FLOTH PROPERTIES LLC 902 198TH AVE E LAKE TAPPS, WA 98391 8645520050 EDSON CHRIS+JANN C 3215 SE 20TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 8645540000 8645540110 LAWRENCE LEE EDWARD 1721 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 • 8645540350 VELOTTA PATRICK E 1708 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645510230 MCCRIMMON CLAUDE 3132 SE 17TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 1431500470 BRUE CHRISTOPHER S+MARIELLE M 15804 124TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 8645511020 GILL GURMIT S+MOHINDER K 19314 138TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700440 HART SIMONE M 12669 SE 160TH ST RENTON, WA 98058 • 8645540360 MOSKALENKO TIMOFEV+NADEZHDA 1702 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 1431700450 SELLERS MARGARET L 12805 SE 158TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 2123059054 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 8645540000 8645540260 MAKOWICHUK WESLIE W 3607 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98055 . ' .' . Denis Law ' . Mayor July 25, 2014 Wayne Potter Noliastar Dev.lnc , "18215 nod Ave S ' Kent, WA9803i .• - Community & Economic Development Department , CE:'chip"Vincent, Administrator : ' . . . -. . , 'Subject:' "Off Hold'Notice,i'Application . ·Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Mr. Potter: " , ,Thank you for submitti,;gth~ additionalmat~rials requ~sted in the December 16,2013 letfer ' , "fromth'e City. Your project has been taken off hold and th'e' City,will continu~ ~eview of the ' R~serve' at Tiffany Park pr~ject, ' We will, be holding a second c()urt~sy two-week publi2, comment periodenciing ()nAugust,8, 2014, ' . . , . ',-'.. ' -,-. " The: ?relimina,y Plat :h~s' be~n, restheduled for 'considerati()n 'by the Erivirbnment~l: ReView' Committee' on August 25;2014. ' Prior to that re~iew;you will.be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your applicatidn;' ' ,', '" " , " ' . . . .' -. . -. . . . -. , , In addition, this matter is tentatiyely rescheduled for a Public Hearihg'onSepte.:nber,23,2014 at' '9:00 AM,Council Chambers; SeventhFlocir,.'R~ntori dty Hall, 1055 south Grady WaY,'Renton" The: applicant or representiltive(s) oftheap'plicant are required to be, present at the public,' h~aring. A copy of the staff report will be mailed, to you prior to the sctiedule'd h~aring; ," , . ," " . . .. -. '. -. -. - Pieasecontact me at (425) 430~72i9ifyou hav~ anyq~estions.' -..' ',. .' " Sincerely, .' . -. . " ... ~~~, •.•.••. ') , " " , " Rocale Timmons Senior Planner cc: .... '. Renton"School Distri~t'/6~~er(s)' Henley USA LLC IApplicant ' Party(ies),of Record -., .' Renton City Hall ,.,1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 9B057 • rentonwa,90v p • • NOTICE OF APPLICATION ("OFF HOLD" NOTICE) AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: July 25, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA13-DD1572, ECF, PP, CAR PROJECT NAME: Tiffany Park Reserve PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requested SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 98-lot subdivision on November 14, 2013. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on November 25, 2013, During our review, staff determined additional information was necessary in order to proceed. On December 16, 2013 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of a Habitat Data Report and Independent Secondary Review of the provided Critical Area Report and Traffic Study. The applicant 'has submitted all necessary information In order to proceed. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97-lot subdivision. The 21.7 acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per -acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern propertY line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 97 Jots would result in a density of 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10-feet In width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th PI SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees. A stormwater detention vault is proposed which would discharge into an existing wetland on the site. The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, Habitat Data Report, and Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands with the application. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th PI SE. Internal residential access streets are proposed to provide access to each lot. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and E). The applicant is proposing wetland buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,000 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of approximately 48,000 square feet. The applicant is also requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PROJECT LOCATION: SW of Pierce Ave SE and E of end of SE 18th St 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 ONS-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). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DN5-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: November 14, 2013 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 26,2013 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.: Tiffany Park Reserve/LUA13-001572, ECF, PP NAME: ______________________________________________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: ______________________________ City/State/Zip: __________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: • • ii $ . Cityof --,.,....,..--J1E~®LoJJl(Q)rrjl APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Wayne Potter, Novastar. EML: wpotter@novastardev.com, MAil: 18215 72nd Ave 5, Kent, WA 98032 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 {SEPAl Review, Preliminary Plat Approval, Critical Area Exemption Building, Construction Arborlst Report, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Impact Analysis. Wetlands Assessment, Habitat Study, Secondary Review for Traffic Analysis and Wetland Assessment. Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7 Public hearIng Is tentatively scheduled for September 23. 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner In Renton Council Chambers at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hal! located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (Camp RSF) and Residential low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map Residential 8 (R-B) and Residential 4 (R-4) and on the City's Zoning Map. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: TIffany Park Reserve/LUA13·0015n, ECF, PP NAME: _________________________________________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ City/State/Zip: _________ _ TElEPHONE NO_: ___________________ _ --------------.-._-. ;' ! • Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC4-2-110A 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 will be required to protect valuable environmental amenities and ensure the development is as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. The applicant will be required to provide adequate mitigation for Transportation Impacts. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale TImmons, Senior Planner, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on August 8, 2014. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on September 23, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6578. Following the issuance of the SEPA Determination you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments regarding 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 mall, 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. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination is available upon request. PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: Rtimmons@rentonwa.gov I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Drip, S"ite 400 Kirk/amJ, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827·9571 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Sdentist (425) 739-7977 July 9, 20]4 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385A L This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton L UA] 3-001572) submitted by the applicant, N ovastar Development, Inc, to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE ] 58'h Street, and south and west of Pierce A venue SE. The City of Renton (the City) has requested that Otak review the critical area docwnentation and provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton MunidpaI Code (RMC), spedfically, Section 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. On May 7,2014, a meeting was held on the site between the City, Henley USA, Barghausen Consulting Engineers (Barghausen), Gary Schulz, Soundview Consultants, and Otak. The purpose of the meeting was to review potential v.ctland areas and discuss the comments in Otak's mernorandumdatedApril3, 2014. The following docwnents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the Renton MunidpaI Code: • Revised draft plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen, signed June 10, 2014; • Response letter from Gary Schulz to Ms. Barbara Yarington G-renley, USA), datedJune 3, 2014; • Revised Wetland Determination: Resem at Tiffol!J Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, datedJune 3,2014; • Wetland Determination: Reseroe at Tiffal!J Park, prepared by c. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc, signed February 27,20]4. • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, CityofRenton Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Revieu' • Page 2 Jufy 9, 2014 • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24,2014. With the addition of Wetland E, the revised Wetland Detennination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and two Category 3 wetlands on the site, much are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. TWl Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014, to confinn whether the wetland delineation w.IS consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation w.IS perfonned inJune 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, w.IS approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 w.IS 5.85 inches above nonnal for March. As noted above, conditions were also inspected during the site meeting on May 7,2014. The follOwing comments correspond to Mr. Gary Schulz's (GS) responses to Otak's memorandum dated April 3, 2014. Comment 1 -Delineation Method Otak's original comment: The wetland detennination report cites the US Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. I-Iov-ever, the Washil(gton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (E cology 1997) is required by RM C 4-3-050.M .4.a. Response to GS: Although the Ecology 1997 method may not bewidelyuscd anymore because it is not the "most current manual," the Renton Municipal Code currently requires its use. Otak recommends that, for this project and in the future, the City require the use of the most current wetland delineation manuals; at the time of this writing, those manuals are the ]987 USACE manual and the 2010 USACE supplement. Regarding the data observed on this site, it appears that there Wluld be no difference betv.een the delineated wetland edges defined by either the Ecology 1997 or the USACE 1987/2010 manuals. We have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 2 -Survey Map Otak's original comment: We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, much is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; hov-ever, if \\e have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced \ \KIRAE01 \proj\projea\32300\32385A \Rep:::nts\Critical Areas RC\iew Memo_20}·e0709.doc • Rocale TimmQtJS, Semar Planner, Cityo/Renton Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Revi,," • Page 3 July 9,2014 Response to GS: Otak appreciates the map showing the wetland flags, and also the re-staking of the wetland flags. We agree with the wetlands boundaries as flagged in the field. During the site meeting on May 7, 2014, it was noted that several of the stake locations differed from the original flag locations by several feet, particularly in Wetland A. Please confinn whether this discrepancy was resolved, so that buffer locations and construction boundaries will be correct. Comment 3 -Wedand A Otak's original comment: We agree with portion.~ of Wetland A's delineated edges. However, V>e could not find some of the flags (including WetlandA-l) in the southern part of the wetland It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A- 1, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophyric vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, MUch is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Comment to GS: Otak further inspected Wetland A during the site visit on May 7, 2014, and reviewxl Mr.. Schulz's revised report and data forms. We agree with Wetland A as flagged and categorized, and have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 4 -Wedands Band C Otak's original comment: During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of Wetlands B and C. In addition, Wetlands B and C are not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland On Marcl117, 2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, MUch is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands B and C are connected (one wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B w:>uld also be considered a Category 2. Comment to GS: Otak further inspected Wetlands B and C during the site visit on May 7, 2014, and reviewxl Mr. Schulz's revised report and data forms. We agree with Wetlands B and C as flagged and categorized, and have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 5 -Wedand D Otak's original comment: We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland \ \KIRAEOI \proj\projea \32300\3238;A \Rep:m:s\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0709.doc ,-------------------------------- • RocaJe Timmat1S, Senior Planner, CityofRentan Reserve at T iffa'!J Park Wetland Review • Page 4 JulY 9, 2014 Comment to GS: Otak further inspected Wetland D dwing the site visit on May 7,2014, and revieMX:i Mr. Schulz's revised report and data forms. We agree with Wetland D as flagged and categorized, and have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 6 -Offsite Wedand (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Original Otak comment: An offsite 'M:tland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site w.lS observed on the southw:st side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right -of-way (see Photograph 2). The northw:st end of the 'M:tland is southw:st of (in line with) 18th Court SE. This linear 'M:tland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the swface to saturation at 4 inches below the swface. This 'M:tland likely meets the criteria in the RM C for a Category 3 'M:tlancl, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Comment to GS: Otak further inspected this area during the site visit on May 7, 2014, and revieMX:i Mr. Schulz's data form for Wetland Data Plot # 16. We agree that this area does not meet all 'M:tland criteria and is therefore not 'M:tlancl, and have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 7 -Offsite Wedands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Original Otak comment: Several offsite 'M:tlands v.ere observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (northeast of the gravel access road [pipeline road]). These'M:tlands appear to be Category 3 m;tlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Comment to GS: Otak further inspected this area dwing the site visit on May 7,2014, and revieMX:i Mr. Schulz's data form for Wetland Data Plot # ]8. Mr. Schulz also describes this area in his response to Comment 6 above. We agree that the area does not meet all m;tland criteria and is therefore not 'M:tland, and have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 8 -Wedand in Southwest Comer of Site Original Otak comment: A 'M:tland w.lS observed in the southw:st comer of the Site, to the north of SE 18th Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area w.lS dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation v.ere observed, and water w.lS draining from the 'M:tland onto the sidew.!lk along the north side of SE 18'h Street. Comment to GS: Dwing the May 7,2014 site visit, Otak inspected Wetland E as flagged by Mr. Schulz. We also revieMX:i his description in the revised Wetland Determination report and the corresponding data fonTIS, and agree with the infonnation and the Category 3 detennination. We have no additional questions or recommendations. \ \KlRAE01 \proj\project \32300\32385A \Rqxrts\Critica1 Areas Review Merno_2014_0709.doc • Rocale Timmans, Senior Planner, CityofRenton Reseroe af Tiffany Park II/efland Review Comment 9 -Flowpath from Wetland B • PageS JulY 9,2014 Original Otak comment: During our March 17, 2014 site visit, water was observed flOwing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water WdS observed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17'h. Standing water was present at Wetland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4--3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during! after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Comment to GS: We have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) Original Otak comment: The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as \\ell as F AC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be,a wetland (see Photograph 6). Comment to GS: Otak further inspected this area during the site visit on May 7, 2014, and reviewed Mr. Schulz's data form for Wetland Data Plot # 19. We agree that the area does not meet all wetland criteria and is therefore not wetland, and have no additional questions or recommendations. Comment 11-Buffer Averaging Original Otak comment: The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050.M.6.f. However, revisions to wetland edges will likely change this proposal. Comment to GS: Otak has reviewed the revised wetland buffer averaging proposal for Wetlands A, B, C, and 0, and agrees that the proposal meets all requirements in RMC 4--3-M.6.f. However, \\e question whether the buffer adjustments on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C take into account the" lock + load walls"; it appears that portions of the walls may fall within the proposed \ \KIRAEOl \prq\pr-ojoo:\32300\3238SA \R{'JXJfts\Crilical Areas Review Memo_Z014_0709.doc • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner; CityofRenton Reseroe al Tiffany Park Weiland Review • Page 6 july 9, 2014 final buffer edges (see highlights on attached Sheet 7). If this is the case, the plans should be revised to avoid these impacts, or to accurately show the pennanent buffer impacts. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Original Otak comment: Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Comment to GS: The revised Wetland Determination report suffidently discusses and shows temporary impacts to wetland buffers. We recommend that the following language be included in the preliminary plat conditions: "Potential temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities will be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and planting of native species, thus bringing the impacted areas to similar or better conditions than what existed prior to construction. Prior to construction, specific vegetation in the temporary buffer impact areas should be noted, so that appropriate vegetation is planted in the restoration areas." Comment 13 -Permanent Buffer Impacts (Wedand E) The revised Wetland Determination report discusses a pennanent buffer impact to Wetland E. The impact totals 14 square feet of new buffer impact associated with the required road extension, and results in a wetland buffer width of less than 25 feet. We agree with the Wetland Delineation report with regard to an exemption; this portion of the project falls under the Specific Exemptions- Critical Areas and Buffers, which states "the construction of new trails, streets, roads, rights-of-way and associated appurtenances, facilities and utilities where no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed other than the minimum alteration and! or fill needed ... " (RMC 4-3-050.C.5.e.ii). The proposed area of new impact to the Wetland E buffer is very small, but is necessary for construction of the SE 18'h Street extension. The applicant should apply for a Letter of Exemption with the City. Encl. Sheet 7 (highlighted) \ \KIRAE01\proj\(Yojoo\32300\32385A \Rqxxts\Critical Areas Review Mcmo_2014_0709.doc \821~ 77~O A\IUlUl SOUTH KDII •.... 88OJ2 ('2~)251-62n (m)!Sl~B1 '/.S. HENlEY USA LLC·· moo ~ S'TfEET, sure 100 BEL.L..EVUE, WA 9IlOO4 PREL.I.4IWW CJ'\ADINQ PLAN FOR RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Wayne Potter Contact Henley USA Applicant City of Renton Owner See Attached Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): ",'''\\\\\\111, STATE OF WASHINGTON .#'~'( PO~/I. ) SS f ~~""~~/", COUNTY OF KING ) 3 Lr~ ~ ; sU ~ ~ i -.-~ ~(J)' -0 = I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante \ ;;~" 8."11.\(" 6...- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the,,~!I'l!&,II:I1~!Q.~ ~" ,- mentioned in the instrument, , 'f> WAS"'\~, ", .. \ ~ \,,' Dated: .....:~~, I'"JAl=/~3!.!o;.)-"J.:>I:J<lI.J...'t Notary (print): ___ -L.H:::..D.:.:±J~---:p,..:...=:.D""\.V:.!uy~----------- My appointment expires: I l' a ,.., 0 (:2 "''''-<I <-<-.,,' -<. -, 0<-'7 (J I Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572, ECF, PP template -affidavit of service by mailing Andreas Benson 12633 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maxwel Ligon 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98057 Marie Antoinette Gallardo 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON. WA 98055 Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 L.R. Riddle 12620 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 James & Marv Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 BOBBY SENGVILAY 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 98055 Gavle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ~ Kipepeo Brown 1725 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98055 ~ Silvestre Cesar 2524 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Lvnn Familv 12904 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St. 100 Bellevue. WA 98032 John Knutson Renton School District 300SW 7th St Renton. WA 98057 Renton. WA 98058 Garv Tavlor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Colleen Bowman 2600 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Anthonv & Margaret Dean 16917 114th Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Michael Melonson 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Heidi Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 .. .............. j~. William Roenicke Karan Gill 3112 SE 18th St 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton. WA 98058 i.WMlMMiJ!JJJJiiiMBIIJ!M Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Wavne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave S Kent. WA 98032 Cvnthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Beth Asher 436 Mill Ave S Renton. WA 98057-6022 Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way S Renton. WA 98058 Donna Thorkildson 2621 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 Imogene Graves 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Vicki Hou 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98056 Erik Fisher 12364 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON. WA 980S8 YVONNE BURGESS 15629 129TH Ct SE RENTON. WA 98058 ---------Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 ~ Phil Schaefer 3301 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 ~ DAVID BEEDON 1725 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON. WA 98058-4747 LARRY GORG 1800 LAKE YOUNGS Way SE RENTON. WA 98058-3812 Racllaell Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton. WA 98058 Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Maraea Albinio 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 EDMONDS Way SE RENTON. WA 98058-4613 Robert Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Pat Velotta 1708 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Dennis 1633 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St renton. WA 98058 Laura Kilgore 1825 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 UfIffJJfIJJJIJf~.jj 1JJfJJJiiIIlIP/_."IIlP!WI._ ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES Anita & Patty Phillips 3624 SE 19TH CT 1517 Newport Ct SE RENTON. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Laura Silbernagel bllllrltimrilUU.filiBibl!UlfJ{ffflffflJ!f!IIl' •• Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Lisa CabalQuinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH Ct RENTON. WA 98058-4754 WIOIJ[q!l/HmmDl/W/III •• MllllnIHMilllfihUf¥lltOllnlwlld _'l11IIJ8J8IIIIIIlIIbBlIlJl1IBlIIIfI Sheryl Anderson Diane Tavlor 1727 Monroe Ave SE 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058-3809 Renton. WA 98058 tiu@~/II'iiil/i;lI/IIIiI/j!III/IIIHIllHil,M!UbJlflllU1!ll/JlIiiIl2ZffIffUJJfJlDlJ!! Claudia Donnellv Sarah Brendehl 10415 147th Ave SE 2509 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98059 Renton. WA 98058 IIl illlbJlflIQJ1l_iJallII1llIUOn//J/jj/i/llitm/lWaIMl •••• 11 Frances Roberts Greg & Jenny Swanson 1700 Edmonds Way SE 1819 Ferndale Ave S Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98055 kKarsten Sathre 1706 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Doug. Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Geoff Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 . Ray 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Delbert Sharp 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Mike 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98055 Sabrina Mirante From: Sent: To: Cc: • Sabrina Mirante Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:07 PM 'Isilbernagel@comcast.net' Rocale Timmons • Subject: Attachments: City of Renton -On Hold Notice -Reserve at Tiffany Park On Hold Notice II.pdf Ms. Silbernagel, As a Party of Record for the above referenced project, please see attached "On Hold" Notice for The Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP. We do not have a mailing address for you, so if you would please reply with your mailing information we can update our records. If you have any questions regarding this notice or the project, please contact Senior Planner, Rocale Timmons at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Sa6rina 'Jvlirante, p{anning Secretary City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way 16th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6578 I Fax: 425.430.7300 I smirante@rentonwa.gov ..;.r-· .. · .. ·""o~·') .. · .':"fj\-. -. --A ---"""""'1/' ,.'. '.· .. "'.·.,"l·'.'..,·f'iO·. :.1 .rr.·.;.'\. ('~iil?~ .. ·.:~:l· -:~~,~~~,·:,;:t~;-:j, ~? 1 '-'" b~UY0" .' "".' .. -.' .Deni~ La", ....•.. Mayor. '. Community & Economic Development Depart~ent . . . .'CE."Chip;:Vincent,Administrator June 30, 2014 . '. :Wayne Potter . Novastar Dev iI,c . 1821572nd Ave s· Kent, WA 980~?. . SUBJECT: '.'O~ Hold" Notice" Cbntihu'ed . Reserve at Tiffany Park ILUA13-0iJi572,EC~, PP . . . , . Dear Mr: Potter:' _i· ',': The.planning Division ofthe City of. Renton accepted the above masterappiication for reyiew on Novemb~r 25,2013 .. During our revieW, staff determinedadditionalinfbrma'tion' wa.s necessarY .. in order to proc~ed, On December 16,2013'fhe project was placed on hold. pending receipt of a Habitat Data Report a~d Independent SecondarY Review of the provided Critical AreaHeport ~ridTraffi2Study.. ." . ., . . Tei date you haye provided' a Habitat Data Report and an Independent S~condarY Re.view of the providedTrafficStlidy.lnd~pendent S~condary RevieJ/ of the Wetland Assessment has also" been corrphitedbY Otak, ilie. Based 6n' a site assessment~nd review of yoursubmi'ttals Otak . provided a' Tech~ical Me~orandum(dated April 3, 2014). 'Theme~ocoritained ~.number of .. recommendatiorisneeded in orderto meet the C'ity code for critical areas.: . ", " . _.... -. . . ·A resporiseto the m'emo; along with a revisedmitigatibn plan, was submitted 'toCitystaff on. Ju,;e -Hi, 2014.·.The response anil' r~~ised 'IT;itigatio'n plan lias been 'forWarded, to Uta'Hor . ·~eview/conc~rrence prior to:nioving forward with' the re~iew bfybur application. At this ,time,' .. your project 'will remain ;'on licilcf :pending r~ceipt of the req'uested information in th~: City. "On'.·· . Hold" letter dated JUne13, 2014..' . . . . . . .... . As a reminder there was a fflO;orholiday during the initio/public commeiltbe~iod therefore the City will conduct an additional two-week public comme'f,t period once the'· requested materials .. :. have been suHniitted: .. ' . . Please contact me at (425) ~30-72i9$hould you have any questions. '. Sincerely, :'.:~ ... ' .. . ~ ...... . ........... ~ ... . . ' Flo ieTimmons. ..... ...• . Senior Planner'. cc: . Own~r{s) Applicant. ' . . PartV(ies) of Record· .... , . . R~nton.city Hall. 1,055 South Gradyway ' .. -Renton, Washington"9aDS? .~ reii·tonwa.go~ : .' . . . . . "..". . . '-. I I ". ! Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: • Wayne Potter <wpotter@novastardev.com> Monday, June 16, 2014 11:56 AM Rocale Timmons • Cc: Subject: Barbara Yarington (Barbara.Yarington@mainvuehomes.com) RE: Tiffany Park Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Rocale, Follow up Flagged Please proceed with OTAK based on the revised scope of services. G. Wayne Potter I Vice President I Novastar Development, Inc. 18215 72,d Ave. South, Kent, Washington 98032 (425) 656 -7435 Direct I (206) 255-7106 Cell From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 9:12 AM To: Wayne Potter Subject: FW: Tiffany Park Hello Wayne, --_._---------"---'-' Attached you will find the revised scope please let me know if it is okay to proceed with invoice. Rocale Timmons From: Darcey Miller [mailto:darcey.miller@otak.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 20147:23 PM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: Kevin O'Brien Subject: RE: Tiffany Park Rocale, Attached please find our addendum to the scope'of work for Tiffany Park. 1 .- • • Scope of Work City of Renton Reserve at Tiffany Park Critical Areas Exemption Review Otak Project No. 32385.A Proposal for Professional Services-Addendum #1 June 12,2014 The following addendum to the original scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Otak, Inc. (Otak) to provide the City of Renton (City) with a review of the wetland information prepared for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat. Per the City's letter to Orak dated December 16, 2013, the City requested that Otak complete the following: 1) . evaluate the accuracy of the delineation and classification of wetlands on the site, 2) evaluate the effectiveness of proposed mitigating measures for impacts, 3) provide alternative recommendations for the delineation and classification of wetlands, as necessary, and 4) provide alternative mitigation measures for proposed impacts, as necessary. On June 9, 2014, the City requested an addendum for Orak to complete a review of the revised wetland documents. This independent secondary review will be based on a previous site visit and on documents provided to Otak by the City. Our approach to this work is divided into four tasks: 1) site meeting (previous work), 2) review of the revised wetland report and mitigation plan, 3) preparation of a Memorandum of Findings, and 4) project coordination. If additional tasks are required, they will be included under a scope addendum. Scope of Work Task 1-Site Meeting (Previous Work) Otak staff (two biologistS) attended a site meeting on May 7, 2014, with City of Renton staff, the applicant, and the applicant's project team. One biologist was onsite for the first portion of the meeting, while the other was onsite for just over four hours. This meeting was not included in the original scope, which included only one full-day site visit with two biologists; plus one person attending a two-hour meeting with the City. The site meeting resulted in an overage of approximately $600 beyond the original budget estimate. Task 2-Review of Revised Documents Otak staff will review the revised wetland determination documentation submitted by the project applicant to the City. The documentation will be analyzed to determine whether it meets the requirements of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) with regard to critical otak l0\p,ojea\32300\32385A \Conttact\Re=v, Tifuny P","-SOW Jddondum 1_2014_0612.doc ------------------- • • Scope of Work Continued areas, and whether the applicant has responded to all requests and questions contained in Otak's Technical Memorandum dated April 3, 2014. Assumptions: • Otak may (but is not required to) request additional engineering plan sheets or project documents as part of the background review, as necessary. Otak will not perform another site visit as part of the review. Task 3-Memorandum of Findings Based on Otak's review of the revised project documents and the RMC, our staff will prepare a memorandum that summarizes our findings regarding whether 1) the wetland delineation and classification are accurate and complete, 2) the proposed wetland buffer averaging is consistent with the RMC; and 3) the proposed review process (e.g., letter of exemption) is appropriate. If any further modifications are required to the wetland determination report or buffer averaging plan, Orak will provide specific instructions on how the applicant should adequately revise the documents. Assumptions: Otak will describe specific document revisions that should occur; but will not complete the actual revisions; the project applicant will be responsible for responding to Orak's requests in the memorandum. Deliverables: Dmft and Final Memorandum of Findings, e-mailed in pdf format A Word version of the Draft Memorandum will be pi:ovided if requested by the City. Task 4--Project Coordination 'Ibis task will include general project management, development of the project approach, , and coordination with City staff. 2 otak K:\project\32300\32385A \Conttact\Reserve Tlffmy p~sow ---Addendum 1_2014_0612.doc ~--------------------------- • • Scope of Work Continued Schedule and Fees Our proposed fee summary is as follows: Task I-Site Meeting (Previous Work) $600 Task 2-Review of Revised Documents $450 Task 3-Memorandum of Findings $500 Task 4--Project Coordination $100 Direct Expenses $50 Proposed Fee Total $1,700 Otak proposes to complete the above Scope of Work for a rime and materials amount of $1,700. hi-house reimbursable expenses and any outsourced direct expenses (e.g., postage/deliveries, mileage, etc.) will be invoiced at cost plus 10% and are included in the contract amount. Tllls is a not-to-exceed scope of work under Otak's City of Renton Consultant. Agreement to provide environmental services related to fisheries, wetlands, water quality, and critical areas. We will not exceed this budget without prior approval from the City. If conditions are found to be different from those described above, Otak will notify the City immediately to discuss any impacts to the scope of work and budget. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or need additional information, please feel free to contact Darcey Miller at (425) 739-7977. 3 ota!< Denis Law' -. '.M~Y6r· ' .. ~ '.' . June 12,2.Ci14 . KevinO'Bril?n OTAKlnc:. , ••• 102~O N{PointsDrive, Suit,e 400 . Kirkland, WA 98033 . . . <" " ; .- " . " .' .' , .' '". .--." ., C9mmunitY&EC~flomic Development Department . . CE."Chip"Vincent,AdminisUato( . .".. . · SUBJECT: Supple'meritallnd'epend~n't ·Seco·ndaryReview.-Wetlanrl Mitigation 'Resl;';'v" at Tiffany j>~rk preliminary 'plat i UJA13-001572, ECF; PP . ..." . ~ . :Dear Mr.O'[3til;'n: , , .. · The :~pplitant for the Tiffany Park has submit;ted a Revised Wetland Determination inresporisl;' · toy6urTechni~al,M~~ora~dum (dat~d ApriI3,2014):. We:wouldlike Otak InqClcohdtict a' . · suppl~mental'reView Dftherevis~d reports prepared by~. Gary Schulddated)uhe3,2Q14),: · AS nenninder thetollowi~g conce~ns ;"ereraised by neighbdr;ngpmpertyowners and we · wouldlikethe scope efyoudndependerlsuppl"mental review'to aiso: .. ' " .', .' ." .Evai~at~ demonstrati6n o(compliaoce with Renton Municipal CodeCriti~1 Area Regulations (RMC 4+050); " . . ..' " . " .. _ .', . .J:valu~te the effectivene~5 of proposed mitigating meas~resJor impacts; and·' • . Providealternaiive rriitigatlofl:'rJjea.sUres for proposed impacts a.snecess~ry. As this review would be paid for by the appli~antpleaseforvJard an estimate arid-scope of wo'rk .' io mY attent;'"n prior 'tc:ip.erforming your reviey;-. . . .... . . ' . . ,,: ,," · Feel free to contact me at'(425) 4~oc7ii9 ,if youhi"ie any questions o(\f you would liketoset up:. a time forasitevisit. 'niank vou.~ .' , ' ' .. ". . . .' . . . 'j 0r0 tJvI1I.' "'~, TjSincer?'A., .~: ~~r~C/J (. ,~.d . I ".)vv\ "'<:'" Ro ale Timmons) I· . Senior Planner ; cc: Owner(s) . App.licant. Attachments ; .. \" .. L_. ______ ~~~." .. -i '. ~., . 'H~~tOl:' tity Hali •. 1b55'Sou~h ~radyway .• ··Re~tOI!,WaShi~gton· 9S0;'7 .. ~en~o'nw~.gov . ," . , ::' -:·i I , • ~ Perteet Memorandum 50SFifth Avenue S .. Suite 300, Seattle. WA 98104 I P206.436.0515 I F 206.436.05 16 To: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton City of Renton cc: Peter De Boldt. Perteet Planning Division From: Dave Aim. Perteet MAY 2 1 ,014 Date: May 16,2014 Re: Tiffany Park -Transportation Secondary Review ~~t~~~~[Q) Summary: • The "Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, Reserve at Tiffany Park, Transpo Group. April 2014" (TIA) has been adequately amended and expanded to incorporate review comments brought by citizen comments and an initial secondary review conducted by Perteet, • Although there remain some concerns with the revised report, the methodology and analysis applied in the TIA are' generally appropriate to produce data sufficient to accurately evaluate the anticipated impacts of the proposed development. • We now support the findings and conclusions of the revised report. SpeCific Review Comments: I. In response to comments on the initial TIA, the revised report contains additional data. including: a. Addition of a section "Traffic and Pedestrian Safety". b. Addition of a vehicle speed report (Appendix D). c. Added Figure 8 "Available Sight Distance at Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street/ Edmonds Way SE." d. Addition of one intersection to the study area, Intersection 13 (Edmonds Avenue SEiSE 16th Street/Edmonds Way SE. e. Edmonds Way has been added to the study area roadway network. f. SE 16th Street has been added to the study area roadway network. g. Additional traffic volume counts have been added for Royal Hills DrivelS. Puget Drive, and for Edmonds AvenueiSE 16th Street/Edmonds Way. 2. The proposed project site plan has been modified, although external access and the number of lots remain the same. The new plan creates two flag lots with shared access. There are no traffic operational concerns with the modified site plan. 3. The revised TIA calls out a concern with inadequate sight distance for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street (one of the two direct project access routes). The mitigation called for either a new Stop requirement for southbound Monroe Avenue or the removal of parking on the northern side of SE 18th Street. Either mitigation would reduce the likelihood of collision. The installation of a Stop sign at this location would be inconsistent with the general lack of intersection signing in the community and may not be necessary. particularly if parking were prohibited in a limited ania of SE 18th Street approaching the intersection. 4. The project trip distribution could be debated but still presents a representative level of impact and seems adequate for this analysis. The discussion of trip distribution notes it is based on other area studies, yet none are referenced. File location: C:\Users\rtimmons\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Oudook\jSC4DU4K\Tiffany Park TJA Review Comments(FinaI5-19).docx Memorandum ~ Perteet 505 Fifth Avenue 5 .. Suite 300. Seattle. WA 98104 I P 206.436.0515 I F 206.436.0516 5. Trip distribution results in presenting a worst case of project impacts, overstating some intersection impacts by loading all generated trips through the subarea to regional destinations outside of the study area. There is no internal trip capture reducing the number of trips loaded to perimeter intersections. In reality, many trips will not reach beyond the local subarea (i.e. school trips, local recreation). 6. There are a few study intersections to the southeast of the project and limited trip distribution in that direction, yet historic area travel patterns have a demonstrated desire for trips along SE 160th Street to I 16th Avenue SE and southward to commercial areas and Petrovitsky Road. Project impacts in the most sensitive areas northwest of the project may be overstated (worst case) due to this heavy trip loading to the northwest. 7. There is an inconsistent growth factor applied to study intersections in deriving the future condition. In random checks, the future growth factor ranged between 2% and 3.3% annually. No explanation for projecting future growth methodology is provided in the report. However, this does not appear to be a significant concern. 8. The collision data presented in the revised report is significantly different than data presented in the original report. The revised report offers no explanation of the change in presented data. The number of collisions reported is higher in five of the twelve original intersections. We note that the accident rate at the Benson Road/Puget Drive intersection is a concern in both rate (1.33 collisions per million vehicle miles in 2012) and in trend (increasing 44% annually for the past three years). Project impacts on this intersection are not significant and the TIA does not explore or suggest mitigation here. The revised TIA does not identify this intersection as an issue in spite of the TIA data clearly demonstrating that this as an intersection with an existing operational concern. 9. The revised TIA shows that project traffic volumes increase significantly at Intersection 13 (Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th Street/Edmonds Way SE). The southbound left turn increases by 21 % PM and 30% AM, and the westbound right turn increases by 20% PM and 16% AM. This would seem significant, yet the revised TIA takes a careful look at this intersection operation and concludes that no mitigation is necessary. We concur with this finding, principally because we note that actual trip loading would likely be lower than the revised TIA projection. Project traffic would in reality be split between this intersection and the intersection at 160thll16th Avenue SE (Intersection 4). The traffic now loaded onto Intersection 13 in the revised TIA was taken wholly from trips previously aSSigned to Intersection 4. By doing this, the revised TIA overstates trip impact at Intersection 13. The original TIA loaded all project volume into Intersection 4 and overstates impact at Intersection 4 by doing so. Both present "worst case" scenarios for the respective intersections. Yet the LOS calculations for both intersections under these scenarios demonstrate no significant impact at either location. File location: C:\Users\rtimmons\AppOata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\jSC4DU4K\Tiffany Park TIA Review Comments(FinaIS-19).docx Memorandum ~ Perteet 505 Fifth Avenu e 5 .. Su ite 300 . Se.n1 e, WA 9810~ I P 206.436.0515 I F 206.436 .0516 Intersection 13 -Edmonds Avenue SEiSE 16th Street/Edmonds Way SE The revised TIA provides a focused examination of this location in response to concerns previously raised by the community. The analysis concludes that no project specific mitigation is justified at this location. File location : C:\Users\rt)m mo ns\Ap pDaca\Loca l\Mlcroso(t\Windows\Tempon.ry In ter ne t Al es\Content.Outl ook\jS C40U ... K\Tlffa ny Park TIA Review Comments(FinaI5·19).docx Memorandum ~ Perteet , • 50S F;fth Aven ue 5 .• Sui te 300 , Seattle. WA 98104 I P 206.4 36.05 IS I F 206.436.05 16 Monroe Avenue SE intersecting with SE 18th Street Primary project acces s is provided through this intersection. The revis ed TIA notes a sight-distance concern in this direction and suggests the removal of parking or installation of a Stop sign. A Stop sign at this location is incongruous with other area intersections . Without parki ng (as shown) sight distance is adequate to avoid collision. With the presence of the fire hydrant already restricting parking somewhat and no direct residential frontage parking demand, a parking restriction seems a more appropriate mitigation . Ate location : C:\Users\rti mmons\App Data\l oa.l\Mic rosoft\Wind ows\Temporary In ternet Fil es\Content.Out!ook\jSC040U4 K\Tl ffa ny Pa rk TIA Review Comm enu{FinaI S-19).docx ~-----------------~~-----------------_.--------------------- • , Memorandum ~ Perteet ------- 505 RIm Avenue S .. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98104 I P 206.436,0515 I F 206.436.0516 Intersection 12 -124th Place SEISE I 58th Street This is the perspective from 124 th Place SE entering SE IS8 th Street, the secondary access point for project traffic. Sight distance is again som e what of a concern at this location , but the TIA does not discuss this condition. With parking in place (not shown), the Sight-distance concern presented by the vertical curve would be exacerbated . Consideration of either a parking restriction or the installation of a southbound Stop requirement seems warranted , File location: C:\Users\rtimmons\Ap pData\Loca l\Microsoft\Wind ows\Temporary In ternet Fil es\Content.Outlook~SC"O U4 K\Tiffany Park TIA Review Comments(Rnal5-19).docx • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Poillts Dri", Suite 400 Kirklalld, 1!7 A 98033 Phon, (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: • Rocalc Timmons, Senior Planner City of. Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north ofSE 158" Street,. and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: ~ • Wetland Determination: Reserve at Tiffany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site, which are required to have SO-foot and 2S-foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. K: \project \32300\32385A \ Reports \ Critical Areas Review J\.1emo_2014_0403.doc ---------------------------------------------------- • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Res,ro, at Tiffany Park Wetland Revi,w • Page 2 April3, 2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17,2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the Washington Stat, Wetlands Identification and Delineation Mantlal (Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches ahove the normal amount for March' (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington State Wetlands Identification and De/ineation Mantlal (Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-0S0.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however, if we have a detailed map and so",e of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-l) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-l, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the Rl\1C for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. K:\projcc[\32300\32385A \Reports\Critical Areas Revicw Memo_2014_0403.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Res""e at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Comment 4 -Wetlands Band C • Page 3 April3, 2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet f.fther than the delineated edges of Wetlands Band C. In addition, Wetlands Band C are not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. H ydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands Band C are connected (one wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wetland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland D We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6 -Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in line with) 18'h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17,2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a . Category 3 wetland, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\projcct\32300\32385A \Reports\Critical Areas Review Mcmo_20I 4_0403.doc ---------------- • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at Tiffany Park Wetland Review -------------------------------- • Page 4 April3, 2014 Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site, to the north of SE 18'h Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17,2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18'h Street. Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9 -Flowpath from Wetland B During our March 17, 2014 site visit, water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3,4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17'h. Standing water was present at \'Vetland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows tbrough this area only during/after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No acrion is necessary. K:\pmject\321,OO\32385A \Repofts\Critical Areas Review Mcmo_2014_0403.doc ,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at Tiffa11)' Park Wetland Review Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) • Page 5 April3, 2014 The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as F AC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should he delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11 -Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-0S0.M.6.f. However, revisions to wetland edges will likely change this proposa!. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of 60% design. Enc!. Photographs K:\projcct\32300\32385A \Rcports\Critical Areas Review Mcmo_2014_0403.doc • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton ReJeroe 01 T!fJol!J Pork Wellolld Review PHOTOGRAPHS • Photograph 1: Wetland A, n ea r so uthern delineated edge (3/17 /14) Page 6 April3, 2014 Photograph 2. Offsite wetland o n Mercer I sland Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3 /17 /14) K:\proj ect\32300 \32385A \Repon s\Critial Areas Review Mem o_20 14_0403.doc • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of R enton Reserve 01 TifJa'!J Park l'i'ella"d Review • Photograph 3. Flowpath , parti ally in walking trail (3/17/14) Photograph 4. Flowpath, p artia Uy in walking trail (3/31 /14) K.!\proj~cl \32300 \32385A \Repom \Critkal Arets Review Memo_20 14_0403 .doc P age 7 April 3, 2014 ,------------------------------------------------------------~ • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton fuse"", al Tiffa'!J Park Weiland &view • Photograph 5. Water flowing west out of Wed and B (3/17/14) Page 8 April}, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite wedand on Cedar River Pipeline ROW, facing SW (3/31/14) K:\project \32300 \J2385A \Repo ns\Criu caJ Areas Review Memo_20 14_0403 .doc ,------ " ' .. ,' ." ., Denis Law" 'Mayo/' 'Febr~ary 20, 2014 • ," .. ," ; -~.:: :". 'Jimand Mary Hab~~ , 1716Mon~be Ave sf: ,. R~nton, WA 9805~8 '.. . . Dep~rtment of CommunitY and Economic Development' '.,' , ' " C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator, ." .. ... ," , 'SUBJECT:,' ',RESERVEATTIFFANY PAltKCOMMENT RESPONSE LITrER LUA13-001572, PI!, ECF '-' . . ',', " '.-... ' , .Dear Mr. & M'rs. Hal:!er:" . -,.' '" " , '.' .- ,ThankyouJor'yourc~mmentsrelatedto the Reserveat'Tiffany Park; dated FebruarY 8,,' 2014: Your letter will be added toth~publicrec.ord fo~consideration bYthe..reviewing' , official and yoLi have b~'en added asa party of record. ,.' ' '", Toaddres~your concerns the applicant v:.ilrb~ requi;ed to ~omplywithth~ City'~', , , develbpnientregulations as well a; Washin~on Stat~'s Environrh~nt~1 Policy (SEPA).' • which includesrequirenients for mitlgatiori for iinpactscause'd by the development: ',' . . '. '. '. . . . " . .'."...... .'. -",' _. , TheCitywili re~iewthe'prbp~salwith reg~rdtoth~protectionofvaluaDI~ , " ,environ,mentahimeriities aridto'erisure thedevelojJment is as compatible as possible,' with the etblogical balance of the ~rea.Thegoalsofthe City"aretb preseivedrainage "patterns; protect groundwate~ supply, preve'nierOsi6n and tbpres'erVetre~sand, ' 'natural veg~tation: Additionally; the applica~t is required to derhon~trate pr';pe~' prOvisions for all public facilities (intlud,ng access, circulation,utHitil\s, and services). ',', .. -.. ' '". ,'" ". . .: '.:; ,.... . '.' . " -' '. . .-". '. The project has been placed on, hold, pendihgthe receipt of a Habitat Data Report;", analyiihgimpactsto critical)'iabitatsfor ~nimals on the sit~.Additionally, the City has, ' 'r~quested the applicant provideaniridepend~hts~c6nda'~ review. of the applicant's' ' , , , " wetland analysis, and trahspoi:tation a~alysis andcthe effeCtiveness afthe proposed', " mitigation. ,'. ' " " " ' . , , Given there was a majorholidayduringtheinitialpublic commeritperiod th~ Cify'will , conduct an adcliti6naltwo-V:;eek pupliccomment period on~erequested materials have. ,been submitted.,', Notice of,th~ sta,rt of the additional cOnimentperiodand., the, " r'~sch~duled he,aring ilate ..,.iii! be provided,in the fon;, of: an a~dition~llettedo all ' , ,pr~pJrtyowners whhin,300feet of the subject property; ncitic~s posted in at"ieastthree conspicuous'places near the property; and you ;"'illreceive(in the mail) a co~rtesy copy' . '" • . . -<. -. . .. ':' , , , Renton Gty Hall .' 1 055 S~uthGi~dy Way. R~nton, washin'~ton 98057 • re~tonw~.gov . . . -..' . ... ~ .. ".', , I ~ . - " .. ',41" -Mr. & Mrs. Habe(' ',,' . Page 2 of 2 · ... cebrU~ry2q, 2014 . , • of the' off-hold lett~r pro~ided to ~he applic~nt. At tliat time.please feelfree to contact .. . mete requestacopy of materials in the fil~ foryourniliiew and additional comment . .. ' .Thank you for interest in this project and .iJ youliave ahy furttierquestions please'f~el . free to contact m'e at 425~430-7219 o(rtimmons@r£mtonwa,gov. Thank.you." . . .. ' . ' "-" ' . '.' .. ' . ' '- ...•. Siricer~eIY; . .•... .' ....... . ~ .... ' ...... >~ . oc leTim" .' .',. " .•.. Se or Plan'ner '" .... ' ." .... .' " ..... .', ' .,", .. -. . ". . '. , -'.' , ':.' , .. ", . : .. c· ." ... " : .... .. , Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Feb.8,2014 • Mary&Jim <jmhbr@aol.com> Saturday, February 08, 2014 10:35 AM Rocale Timmons; Chip Vincent; jmhbr@aol.com Tiffany Park Woods Development Follow up Flagged AnN: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner C.E.Vincent, Administrator/Planning Director Subject: Tiffany Park Woods Development • In response to the meeting for the Tiffany Park woods, we wish to state that we are against the development of the area. We are worried about the impact the traffic will have. If the developer cannot get the approval to open 124'h pI. SE, it will force an unacceptable amount oftraffic onto SE 118'h St. and Monroe Avenue SE. The use of retention ponds you are suggesting is disturbing, because the water from the wetlands already drains onto our property and causes the yard to become soggy during the rainy season. If there is more drainage from the proposed retention ponds, we fear that it would cause our house to settle, the foundation to crack, or the structure itself to be damaged. Jim and Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave. SE. Renton, WA98058 425-271-0147 jmhbr@aol.com 1 Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St, 100 Bellevue, WA 98032 . (425)646-4022 Andreas Benson 12633 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 (425)271-0827 ~eserve at Tiffany Park· LUA 13-001572 PARTIES OF RECORD Wayne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave 5 Kent, WA 98032 Renton, WA 98058 (425)255-0182 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 "(;il.' j' " • • !iii > f $", ,'" .' , , • 'f Lynn Family 12904 SE 160th St Renton, WA 98058 ... , ,*" 'I .•..... , I ,i, " , , ,. . • ' ~ -0 r Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 __ i_IIl_Hilli1WlrnIWIll !r:t!Y~_ij_1 Ryan & Jennifer Spencer 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 (425)271-4653 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave 5E Renton, WA 98058 (425)255-0225 Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 barbiandlance@live.com Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton, WA 98056 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 (425)228:4396 James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (425)271-0147 "-Il!Il!lllliI~III.1IIlIBII rha!rt:Yt9UeC~~~~~' EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (360) 220-2018 ladyjanecody@gmail,com Anthony & Margaret Dean 16917 114th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 cW.:<E.~~M •• "'''' Claire Johnson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 (425)687-7144 Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 (425)917-9769 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 (206)914-4427 Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98057 (425)277-1302 Gayle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Michael Melanson 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 mmelonson@msn.com William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 risingr@integrity.com Erik Fisher 12364 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 Cynthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Page 1 of 2 . <," ... . '". '," '.", " . Denis Law.· .. Mayor" · F~f>ruary 21, 2014 . ,-' , . Kathleen Butler. 3106 SE 18th Street R~nton,VVA 98056 .. .. . . ' ' '. Department'of C~mmunity and Economic Development "." . CE."Chip"Vinc'ent,Administrator . ',' . .' SUBJECT: .... RESERVE ATTIFFANY PARK COMMENT RESPONSE ltTTER , . -" ,--'.", . . - 'LUA13-001S72; PP,ECF • Dear Ms. Butler: " .', Thank you f9r,your cOmments. related.to the Reserve at Tiffany Park; dated February 14; . 2014. Your letter will· be added i:o the' public record for co'nsideration by the reviewing .. . . offidaland you havebeenaddelas a party of record: . . . . . •. As. you know the project has 'been plated"on hold, penclirig the receipt of a· Habitat. Data "Repbrt,a;'~iyiing imp~cts to 'critical habitats fOr anir'n~ls onthesit~. Additionally, the' City has' requested th~ 'appiiCant provide an independent\;econdary'review ohhe .. 'applicant's wetl~nd analysis a~dtransportation'aij~lysisahd the 'effectiyeness of the . proposed mitigatiOn, " .. . '. Giveri there was a ~ajor holiday 'duririg the initial public comment period the City will i:Onduct.~n~dditionaltwo-week public comment period once requested materials-have been submitted. Notice ofthestart<()f the additional comm~iitp~ri~dand the< . · r~~chedul~d heari'ngdatewill' bepro~ided· in. tii~ farm of: an additiqnallett~r. to all ... property owners . .,.vithin 300 feet 6fthe s'ubjectproperty;notice~ 'postedinse~eral' ." . conspicuous placesn,ear th~ property; and y()U wiUreceive (in the rriail) a courtesy COpy .... of the off~hold letter provided to the applicant,~ .• At that time pl~asefeel.free:to contact' · me to requesta 'co~yofmaterial~in the file for your'review and additionalcomment .. To address your concerns .the applicant will ben~quired to comply with. the City's develop~ent regulations as wei!. as Washingt()n state's Environ~ental Policy (SEPA)' .' . which includes req'uirements for' mitigation forimpacts i:a~sed by the development,"·· . , " .. -' .' '" .-" .. -. : ~ :Tlle City will review the proposal with,'regard to '. the p'rot~ction . of valuable · ~nvironme'ntalamenities and to ensure the development is.as compatible .as possible . 'with the ecological' balance of the area.Th~ goals of the, City aret() preserVe drainage . . patterns,-prOtect groundWater supply,preve~t . ~rosion and to pr~serv'e trees' and' .' --. "..... . .".-. Renton City riall • J 055 South .Grady Way;. Henton,Washington 98057 .' rentonwa.gov .. I -'. ,,-,",," -..•••.• :.;., .:-•• . " . .' .... ..... ,: .. ; • M~.'But.ler . hge 201 2. February 21; 2014 nat'uralvegetatiOn.' AdditiOllillly, the' applicant is required to ,demonstrate proper. provisions for allpublicfacilities (including aci:e~s,circulation; utilities,and services) .... .' . .' l' Public comments/questions on'the·proposal .will be used along with the information' provided by the applicant.andtheindependent studies to. inform our. n;~iew and' .recommendations to the Environmental HevieVl/ Committee'. and the City'sH~aring . Examiner. The' City will be speCifically addressing ·allof. the public's com'ments in two ,separate,: reports . (Environmental Reviev:, : . Report and . He~ring Examiner RecominendatiOnReport)thatwill be sent outto allofthe parties cif record .. \: ' ti~pe this )etter addressesyou~'~oncern~ and. provides ,you withtlieiilf()rmation to ti~i:terengagE;! in our upcomingpublicprocess .. If you have anyfurther questions.please .feel freetocoritact meat 425 C430-7219 of rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. . '§ ... ~~ncer~eIY' .,' ....•......•.•...... :.. .' ..•.•...... ....... ~ . ..•... oc leTim ..... . ....•........... . • Se cir Planner " .... ,: .' . ..• . " ... '. , . -'. . . . . " " " .', .,,: "",' 'I •• .. '. : .... , : ~ " : .,", " .' ',-. ... ' -_ .. _ .. _------------------ Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: • • Kathleen Butler <kathleen.butler.kb@gmail.com> Friday, February 14, 2014 7:17 AM Rocale Timmons Tiffany Park Reserve Meeting Person of Interest list -... -.' ...... My name is Kathleen Butler, I would like to be put on the person ofInterest List for the Tiffany Park Reserve. I attended the Meeting last week and was pleased to met you and others from the City planning. I live on 18th street and I'm very concerned about the issues raised at this meeting. I feel that the city needs to consider a new Traffic Analysis, for 18th St. and surrounding area, including Ponderosa at top of 116th, that is Fair and unbiased, that the Developer is not part of. Also the impact of the possibility of the l24th entrance, that will bring more traffic short cutting thur our neighborhood like it does on Pierce and Index coming from Fairwood. Maple Valley,Kent, and Renton East use our neighborhood as a short cut to avoid 167 and Maple Valley Highway. I would like to let you know that we have Handicap residents and visitors daily that need to park on our street. We must keep the street parking on 18th.We have a sloped driveway and are unable to get out of our cars on the driveway. My bandicap parents (who also live in Renton) park on the street in front of the house. They are unable to walk but short distances. One other concern of mine is the Loss of our wild life. We in Tiffany Park take pride in still having some wild like. I would like to know if the city plans on a Habitat Study with a Wildlife Specialist. This is something very important to all of us. Also I would like to know if the Mayor is aware of our concerns or do we need to email him. Please keep me informed Thank you, Kathleen Butler Kathleen.butler.rb@gmail.com 1 '.; , " , .... ..• J . .. '-. DenisLaw '. ',' Mayor' February21;2014 ' , De'par,tmeilt of CommunitY and Ecoryomic Development , " CE,"Chip"Vinceni, Administrator, ,', POJider~sa Estates, Housing Development' ',,', SE EdmondsWay/SE Edmo~dsCtjSE Edincinds Avenue, ' ,", R~ntQri,WA9S058 ' .".. .' ' ' -' , :, SUBJECT: ",RESERVEATTIFFAN'(PARK COMMENTRESPONSE q:tiER ", '. lUAB'001572, PP;ECF , " , , '.,:' ",De.arPonderosaEstates Housing-Development: We appreciate you taking the time,to provide written comments regarding tli~ ReselYe at Tiffany Patk dated February 18,2014. Your letter describes conCerns related tothe .' ' '" proposed development's t'ransp6rtati~n im~aCtsand areques1: to h11V~ the scope of the transportation analysisbfoaden'ed to include the Edmonds AveSE/SE 16th St/Edmonds." Way,SE il)terseCtiori;' : " . '. ,-. . . -. - 'The applicant'provided a\r~nsportation:Study,~~d potentialniitigation,prep~red by~ , certifiedprofessiorial as part ~ftheirapplication to the City, As yo'uare'aware, the City , has, placed the' project on hold pendihg receipt of an indepe~dennecondary:review of , til!'! existing transportation study and the effectiveness Of the proposed fIlitigation. the ,independentseeondary reviewer has not yet begun thei~ evaluatf6n oftheappiic~nt's , ,,'. studyimdyou h~ve"presented.c'ompellingc~ncerris with respect to poteriti<il impacts at intersectionsnbte~aluated inthe provided analysis, We will be-forwarding yourletter, to'the independent revie,wer,andsuppa'rtirig your req,uestfora broadei;~dscbpeto' " . , ,'. ',"" '. ,'. -th ".' "include,the intersecticinof Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16 St/EdmoridsWay SEc , --." " " . . -. '.. . The City will be.condueting an additional two-weekpubiic comment period.ohce ' 'requested materials(iridudirigtheindependent~ecoridarY re~iew ofthetransportai:ion ' 'study) ha~e beensubmltted-: N6tice oftheadditionar comment p~riod anda , ' ,rescheduled I)earing d~te willbe prOvided in the form of: an' additionalJettertoall '", propertY owners within 300 'feeiof thesubject,property; notices posted ih at least three," conspicuous placesnea~ ttie 'property'; and all tha'se listed on the party' of record list will.' 'receive (in the m~il)a courtesy copy of the off-hold Ietter provided to the applicant.' This,notice will also ~erve as notice that staff hasreceivedtheindep,eiid~~t analysiS of ,the applicant's transportation study. At that time,please feel free to c6htactme to' request a copy ofthe independent analysis for your review and comment.' , ' '. ,'. ~.' -,.' I', Renton CitY.Hall • " 055 South Grady W~y • Renton;was~ington?8057 • rentoriwa,gov, ' , ". . . .', :. '. \ . " '. -' , ,., .. J. :,' , , ' " :~ .•.. ',' p·o~defosa. EStates Ho'using Deve!opment Page2of2 • February 21; 2014' . . 11' This City is working diligently to ensure the Reserve at Tiffany Park developnnent is as . compatible as possible with the ecological balance'ofthei3reaa~d prope(provisionsfor" .. ' all public faCilities (including access, circulation,utilities; .and serviCes)aieinduded in' " the~proposal. Weapprecia'te your willingness toengag'ein our publicprocess and . welco'meyour com'ments: . . , . . Your letter will als~ be added to the.public record for~onsideration by therevi~~ing '. officia,1 and all tliose listed on the attached resident list have been added· as a party of" , retord.lf you have any furttierquestlons, please feel· free to contact me at 42S~430-, , 72190rrtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.'" " ',' ,'.' .' '.,' ", . -'" -, " ", Sincerely, ' .. , .. ' .• .' ,.'. . "7?W~ '~~~~;;Ii:ner' .'. .... . ... 'cc: ,'.' "', -, .. ,,'~eni~"La~, Maybr'-, _ . , . Chi'p v;~~ent,CED Acimini~trator Ponderosa Estates ResidentS ". Re~ton School District / o..iner HenJ~y USA LLC'/ Applicant .. Novastar Development Inc, / Contact. File. No: LUA13'()01572 ,:. ' . , ~, . Ponderosa Estates Housing Development SE Edmonds Way/SE Edmonds Court/SE Edmonds Avenue Renton, WA 98058 Jan lilian plan Reviewer Department of Community and Economic Development Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 February 16, 2014 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park RECEIVED FEB I 8 2014 Dear Mr. lilian: CITY OF RENTON We are writing in regards to the traffic study the City of Renton is conducting to ascertairf~~.BI'6IfION the addition of The Reserve at Tiffany Park on traffic. It is our assertion that the Impact study needs to be broadened to Include the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th St./Edmonds Way SE intersection In order to correctly determine the true Impact of the addition of 98 homes on the transportation Infrastructure In the surrounding area. The city has already deemed the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th St./Edmonds Way SE as dangerous. Members of the Ponderosa Estates community have requested on multiple occasions for the addition of a crosswalk at this intersection; however, the City of Renton will not agree to this request because a cross walk would provide a false sense of security for those crossing the intersection. If this is indeed the case, the addition of hundreds more cars going through this intersection on a daily basis will further increase the danger at this intersection. To add to the complexity of this intersection, vehicles traveling up SE 16th St. towards the intersection are blind to pedestrian traffic because it is on a hill. Pedestrians wishing to cross SE 16th St. to the community developed and maintained Ginger Creek Park are constantly in danger as a result of cars that speed up the blind hill. An increase of traffic will further exacerbate this issue. Vehicles exiting Edmonds Avenue SE and turning onto SE 16th St. to access Tiffany Park homes do so at a high rate of speed. This makes it nearly impossible for vehicles to safely exit Ponderosa Estates from Edmonds Way SE. More importantly, it places families in danger who are accessing the two metro bus stops on Edmonds Avenue SE. This issue will be intensified by the increase of traffic accessing Tiffany Park. We are a very stable community, with many us having lived here for twenty plus years. We know based upon our observation of current and past traffic patterns that, although there are other entrances into Tiffany Park, our Tiffany Park neighbors take the shortest route home, down SE 16th St. We sincerely hope that you will broaden the scope of the transportation study to Include the Intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th St./Edmonds Way SE and Implement appropriate 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 Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see RMC 4-7-080(1)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1. As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report. Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. 6. Loss of Recreational Use. The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City'S detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking, this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial relief to prevent development of the proposal. No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1) the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the. public to use its property; or (2) the public repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss ofrecreational use should not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental impact for purposes of SEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's park policies or regulations penalize a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: I. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-4-080(1)(7): a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged when feasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) b. Where Permitted: Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize a joint use driveway where such joint use driveway reduces the total number of driveways entering the street network, subject to the approval of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Joint use driveways must be created IIpon the common property line of the properties served or through the granting of a 25 permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint use access to the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legal form acceptable to the City. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 ,-------------. ------------------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 1(2) of the staff report in the portions related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road (Road A, SE 18th Street or I 24th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot II and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cui de sac at the end of the same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot II is problematic because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot II is not an unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cui de sac, the driveway for Lot II would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cui de sac serves a limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cui de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot II caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(l) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting. subdivision. or dedication of any areas shall be 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 -31 2 3 4 5 6 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18 th Street and 124th Place SE, both public roads.RMC 4-7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, SE 18 th Street and 124th Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic} trail, 7 provisions shall be made for resen'ation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail 8 purposes. 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via I 24th Place SE (see Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the designated trail across the extension of I 24th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian 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 formations). 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. FloodinglJmmdation: 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 sllch 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 4-3-050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. PRELIMINARY PLAT -32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: 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 presen'ed. 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. 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.B, the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.B, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. 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.A. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 18 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above. RMC 4-7-1S0(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 PRELIMINARY PLAT -33 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE 18 th Street and I 24th Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two public streets which did not exist previously. RMC 4-7-150(8): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offiets of less than one hundred twentyfivefeet (J 25J are not desirable, btlt may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 17. As detennined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. RMC 4-7-150(E): I. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 18 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 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-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a ''flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where thefollowingfactors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or PRELlMJNARY PLAT -34 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow 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 RC, R-J, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no filture connection to a larger street pattern is physically 10 possible. I I 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by 12 creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are 13 currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. 14 IS 16 17 18 The cuI de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-1S0(F): All adjacent rights-ofway and new rights-ofway dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fitll 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. 19 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage 20 21 22 23 improvements. RMC 4-7-1S0(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitatefilture development. 24 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the 25 26 presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential development. PRELIMINARY PLAT -35 • - 2 3 4 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water jlow and shall be of 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 (SlIIface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity forfuture development of the lots. Water qualityfeatures shall also be designed to 5 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is In conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No.5 and 6. 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 jlre hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 34. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to sen'e the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to pennit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all sen'ice 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. 35. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials above the utilities. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 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 subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. PRELIMINARY PLAT -38 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 26 36. As conditioned. 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 sun'eys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: 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. 37. As conditioned. VI. DECISION The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat and critical areas exemption as depicted in Ex. 2 and described in this decision is approved, subject to the following conditions: The proposed preliminary plat and critical areas exemption as depicted in Ex. 2 and described in this decision is approved, subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22,2014 except as modified below: a. MONS Condition I shall be revised as follows: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-aJmroved geotechnical report. b. MONS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following: PRELIMINARY PLAT -39 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 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots and a 10 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.1 and K. Lot II may access the public street directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C. The applicant PRELIMINARY PLAT -40 r---~ 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 shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 7. The temporary buffer impacts conslstmg of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18 th Street. To provide an additional offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18 th Street, as well as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. II. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project PRELIMINARY PLAT -41 l 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 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of I 24th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (a minimum of 80% of the required lot width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17,38,40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -42 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 \3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 080M.2. 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling. comer of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot comers shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. DATED this 7th day ofJanuary, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT -43 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 APPEAL RIGHTS AND V ALVA TION NOTICES RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-1 I O(E)(\ 4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-1 1 O(E)(l 3) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change In valuation for property tax purposes 9 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -44 , City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ADDRESS: 300 SW 7TH ST CITY: RENTON ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: HENLEY USA LLC COMPANY (if applicable): 11100 MAIN STREET SUITE 100 ADDRESS: RI" , I'VIII' WA QRnnA CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425 646-4022 CONTACT PERSON NAME: WAYNE POTTER COMPANY (if applicable): NOVASTAR DEV INC ADDRESS: 18215 72ND AVE S CITY: KENT WA ZIP: 98032 ~ELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: WPOTTER@NOVASTARDEV.COM 425251-6110 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp,doc - 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION . PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: SE 18TH ST AND 124TH PL SE RENTON 98058 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 212305-9044,9051,9054,9061 EXISTING LAND USE(S): VACANT PROPOSED LAND USE(S): SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RSF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) N/A EXISTING ZONING: R8 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A SITE AREA (in square feet): 945,252 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 202,725 SF +/- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS 3,428 SF +/- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 5.87 DU per net acre NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS R a~plicable) D 98 ECEIVE NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS8f applicable): I~ V i 'i LU IJ 98 . -CITY Of RENIO~'3/11 PLANNING DIVISION \ •• • PROJECTINFORMATrlO~N~~(.c~o~n~t~in~u~e~d)L-____________ --. NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: N/A B.B million SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): VARIES BETWEEN 2500 TO 3000 SF 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): N/A CJ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL III AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A CJ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A CJ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if CJ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): N/A CJ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): III WETLANDS 12.056 sq. ft. N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE&SW QUARTER OF SECTION --1L, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE~, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Mer r~ , declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. JyJfAIU)On. ~~ Signature of Owner/Representative /1-5-/3 Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that @fY"// f(;eft( r signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and volunt ;Y act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. Dated NotarY Public in and for the stat; O~Shington Date Notary Public Slate Of· Washington &ANDRAM DOlPH Notary (Print): __ 6t:V7=--'--"d_/U __ /J1'--,_D_u-'I..<...fl._'h-'--___ _ My I\pp<)Intment E>epIres Nov '27. 2013 My appointment expires: __ M"=L.l<·O"'I/.'-'~~'/TI=bv=~--'a=7,~/'--..::~=OCC!.'/-'.3~ __ __ ...," . H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -2 -03/11 ~~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ,i PLANNING DIVISION WAleR OF SUBMITTAL REa6EMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services, 2. Public Works Plan Review 3, Building 4:'Plannirig II.,CLOlbalid o""s ,etjlpislcsI56114 !aip i 'a"dou.sd ia'lillt'g,,,alvQloi$Q6'!!lMUQ4§ xis · PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER. SUBMITTALREQUIRE.NTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Inventory of Existing Sites 2 ANa 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 of View Area Photosimulations 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. PropertY Services 2. Public Works Plan Review PROJECT NAME: --:....JIr....:.0_'F..::...A..:.t..tJ..:..,j,l'-V----'-I3:..../!;.:..:..K-'..;II'--'--__ _ DATE: __ ;:_OL...;Y?:;....:;o)+,!"'-'.:?_a=u~ __ _ 3. Building 4. Planning 1111CGB\QalmMriin T9fflf)!AtemSetHieb'! lei!!!! f!.ls',Rr"I!"ih'g\wa!,€" 'Fs"I""H1a' • ;, , . • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • -------1Pt~mr1t@ffil e MEMORANDUM DATE: ' February 7, 2013 TO: Pre-Application File No. 13-000088 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Tiffany Park Plat (Renton School District Property) 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 online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18 th St bordered by the Seattle Water Line on the east and south sides of the site. Division 4 of the Tiffany Park subdivision is located to the north and west of the site. The applicant is proposing a 99-lot subdivision of a 22.41-acre site, which is primarily located within the R-8 zoning classification, with a small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The proposed lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single-family homes. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access along the northeastern border of the site. Internal residential access streets are proposed to provide access to each lot. The site contains two Category 2 wetlands and is located within Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Current Use: The site is currently vacant and is owned by the Renton School District. 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 B.O dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The area of public and private streets and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density. It is unclear how much area would be dedicated to critical areas, access easements, and right-of-way therefore the net density of site could not be calculated. The applicant would be requIred to demonstrate compliance with the density requirements of the zone at the time ol/ormalapplicatlon. RECEIVED NOV 142013 i:\rtimmons\preapps\13-000088 (r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access).doc CITY C;: RENTON PLANNING DIVISION .. . . ' . ' ------------------------------------- Tiffany Park, PRE13.000 • Page 2 of4 February 7, 2013 • Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2·110A, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-S standards" herein). Minimum Lot Size, Width and Depth -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-B 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 lot 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 lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. The proposal appears to comply with the lot size, width and depth requirements of the zone. 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·B zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater and a maximum impervious surface of 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. 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. 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·S zone are 15 feet in front for the primary structure and 20 feet in front for the attached garage, 20 feet in the rear,S feet on interior side yards, and 15 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements but not shared driveways) for the primary structure and 20 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements but not shared driveways) for the attached garage. The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Access/Parking: Access to site is proposed via an extension of SE lSth St which proposes a potential connection to Pierce Ave SE. An internal grid system is proposed which includes a 50- foot wide public street terminating in two cul-de·sacs. The applicant would be required to provide a 53-foot right of way, for the internal street, or request and have approved a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width to 50 feet.' The applicant has not provided adequate justification to support such a modification request. i:\rtimmons\preapps\13-000088 (r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access).doc .. --------- Tiffany Park, PRE13-000a Page 3 of4 February 7, 2013 • Alley: Alley access is the preferred access pattern. The applicant would be required to redesign the plat in order to provide an alley for the two-tier lots. All lots abutting the alley would be required to take access off of the alley. 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 Short Plat applicatian. 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% 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 sixto one. Critical Areas: The project site appears to contain two Category 2 wetlands. The applicant will be required to provide an updated wetland reconnaissance and delineation. In addition, if impacts are proposed to the wetlands or their buffers the applicant would be required to provide a conceptual mitigation plan. The City's approved consultant list is enclosed in the information packet. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. The standard Category 2 wetland buffer is SO-feet. All critical areas and buffers are required to be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). City of Renton's Critical Areas maps also indicate the subject site is located within the Aquifer Protection Zone. The overall purpose of the aqUifer protection regulations is to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination by hazardous materials. Some uses are restricted that store, handle, treat, use, or produce substances that pose a hazard to groundwater quality. Iffill is used, then a fill source statement is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain whether additional critical areas are present on the site. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. Environmental Review: Environmental (SEPA) Review is required for projects nine lots or greater, or on sites that contain critical areas. Therefore SEPA would be required for the proposed subdivision. Permit Requirements: i:\rtimmons\preapps\13-000088 (r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access).doc .... , r .. --------------------_._----- Tiffany Park, PRE13-000 • Page 4 of4 • February 7, 2013 The proposed subdivision would require Preliminary Plat Approval and Environmental {SEPAl 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. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) 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 following impact fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. The following are current fees and are likely to be increased in 2014: • A Fire Impact fee of $488.00 per new single family residence. • A Transportation Impact Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; and • A Parks Impact Fee based on $530.76 per new single family residence. • A School District Impact Fee based on $6,392 per new single family residence. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Expiration: The preliminary plat approval is valid for seven years with a possible one-year extension. i:\rtimmons\preapps\13-000088 {r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access).doc I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see RMC 4-7-080(1)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1. As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report. Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. 6. Loss of Recreational Use. The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking, this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial relief to prevent development of the proposal. No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1) the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss of recreational use should not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental impact for purposes of SEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's park policies or regulations penalize a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 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: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction 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. RMC 4-4-080(1)(7): a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged whenfeasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) b. Where Permitted: Adjoining commercial or industriallises may utilize a joint use driveway where such joint use driveway reduces the total number of driveways entering the street network, sllbject to the approval of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Joint use driveways must be created upon the common property line of the properties served or through the granting of a 25 permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint lise access to the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legal form acceptable to the City. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 1(2) of the staff report in the portions related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road (Road A, SE 18th Street or I 24th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot II and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cuI de sac at the end of the same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot II is problematic because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot II is not an unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cuI de sac, the driveway for Lot II would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cuI de sac serves a limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cui de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 1(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 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 -31 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18 th Street and 124th Place SE, both public roads.RMC 4-7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staffreport or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, SE 18 th Street and 124th Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic} trail, provisions shall be made for resen'ation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail 8 purposes. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via I 24th Place SE (see Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the designated trail across the extension of I 24th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: I. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be hannful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the 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. J 6 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 4-3-050JJa, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. PRELIMINARY PLAT -32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE 18 th Street and 124th Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two public streets which did not exist previously. RMC 4-7-t50(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-t50(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. RMC 4-7-t 50(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/h'e feet (125') are not desirable, bllt may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and 15 approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. 16 17 RMC 4-7-t50(E): 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 18 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 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-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where thefollowingfactors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or PRELIMINARY PLAT -34 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allowfuture 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 RC, R-I. and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no filture connection to a larger street pattern is physically 10 possible. I I 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. The cui de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constmcted as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 19 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage 20 21 22 23 improvements. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate fi/ture development. 24 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the 25 26 presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential development. PRELIMINARY PLAT -35 2 3 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to cllrved street lines. 4 23. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lot mllst have access to a pllblic street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 24. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street. 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 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 25. As previously determined and as conditioned, 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 (I) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street cun'e or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty jive feet (35'). 26. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 25, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements. RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater than fOllr-to- one (4: I). 27. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion. PRELIMINARY PLAT -36 2 RMC 4-7-170(F): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-ol-way. except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteenfeet (15'). 3 28. As proposed all lots meet this criterion. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permitted for new plats to achieve the minimum density within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density. Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Length: The pipestem shall not exceed one hundred/ifty feet (150') in length and not be less than twenty feet (20') in width. The portion of the lot narrower than eighty percent (80%) of the minimum permitted width shall not be used for lot area calculations or for the measurement of required front yard setbacks. Land area included in private access easements shall not be included in lot area calculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another. 29. The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The applicant has proposed several pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17,38,40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5. RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be requiredfor the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(8): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 19 adding 'attractiveness and value to the property. 20 21 22 23 24 25 31. Trees will be retained as required by City code as detennined in Finding of Fact No.5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. 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. 26 32. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT -37 2 3 4 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 of 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 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 5 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No.5 and 6. 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 offire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 34. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(0): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed undergrollnd. 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, ineluding all 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. 35. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials above the utilities. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 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 subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certifY to the City that it is properly installed. PRELIMINARY PLAT -38 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 36. As conditioned. 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 sun'eys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SlGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 37. As conditioned. VI. DECISION The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat and critical areas exemption as depicted in Ex. 2 and described in this decision is approved, subject to the following conditions: The proposed preliminary plat and critical areas exemption as depicted in Ex. 2 and described in this decision is approved, subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22,2014 except as modified below: a. MDNS Condition I shall be revised as follows: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28,2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-approved geotechnical report. b. MDNS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following: PRELIMINARY PLAT -39 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 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots and a 10 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction pernlit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.1 and K. Lot II may access the public street directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C. The applicant PRELIMfNARY PLAT -40 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 7. The temporary buffer impacts conslstmg of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18 th Street. To provide an additional offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18 th Street, as well as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. II. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project PRELIMINARY PLAT -41 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 26 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.0 (a minimum of 80% of the required lot width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17,38,40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -42 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 080M.2. 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. 2 I. All road names shall be approved by the City. 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling comer of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot comers shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. DATED this 7th day of January, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT -43 .... City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ADDRESS: 300 SW 7TH ST CITY: RENTON ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than ow~er) NAME: HENLEY USA LLC COMPANY (if applicable): 11100 MAIN STREET SUITE 100 ADDRESS: RFU FVIlF WA 9R004 CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425 646-4022 CONTACT PERSON NAME: WAYNE POTTER COMPANY (if applicable): NOVASTAR DEV INC ADDRESS: 18215 72ND AVE S CITY: KENT WA ZIP: 98032 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: WPOTTER@NOVASTARDEV.COM 425251-6110 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp,doc -I - PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: SE 18TH ST AND 124TH PL SE RENTON 98058 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 212305-9044,9051,9054,9061 EXISTING LAND USE(S): VACANT PROPOSED LAND USE(S): SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RSF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) N/A EXISTING ZONING: R8 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A SITE AREA (in square feet): 945,252 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 202,725 SF +/- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 3,428 SF +/- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 5.87 DU per net acre NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS R a~plicable) D 98 ECEIVE NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS8f applicable): I~ V I 't LU IJ 98 '0: ,\I CITY Ol= R~NTOlo3/11 PLANNING DIVISION '\ ------, I I • • PROJECTINFORMATrIO~N~~(lc~o~n=ti~nu~e~d~I) ______________ ~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: N/A B.B million SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): VARIES BETWEEN 2500 TO 3000 SF 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): N/A IJ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL III AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A IJ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. fl. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A IJ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if IJ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): N/A IJ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Il! WETLANDS 12.056 sq. fl. III''&' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE&SW QUARTER OF SECTION -ZL, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE~, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Mer('~ , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ':rnf.Nl&?On. ~oy: Signature of Owner/Representative /1-5-/3 Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that tl7K/! &~ r signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and volu~rY act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. Dated Nota~ Public in and for the stat; o~shington Date I'folory Public Siole ojoWoshlngion SANDRA M DOlPH Notary (Print): _-,c00=~cf,,-;.n-,--_/J1,--._D_· _D....:.!, .... fJ.-'..,'h'--___ _ Mv App<)Inimeni ExpIres I'fov '2' •. 2013 My appOintment expires: _~&I"",-... O",{/,,-,'b77=,-,hv=~---,a,--'1,-,,,---,;),,-,O,,,'/-,.3,,,-__ __ H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Plannlng\masterapp.doc - 2 -03111 .r-~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------) PLANNING DIVISION WAI.R OF SUBMITTAL REQ6.EMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requiremenl may be waived by: 1. Property Services. 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4:-"Plannirig IL,SCOMB,a" OIlilS I c,.lp!ates[ieill lelo j ia,iuoylS,j ialillll,g, .. a.v§lpisy6"II;G;uii'l§ gis [)! AI. .. 1./,,> ; j),STJDAC bMW PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER 0: SUBMITTALREQUIREeNTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 of Site Conditions of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. PropertY Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning .. ~ PROJECT NAME: _!lr~/..:...Ti_r.:....A:.L-;J='YL-.:...:?A:....:..:..K~!I..1....-__ _ DATE: _-=j,_OL..:.&.::::!»+,!='.2'~a"",u~ __ _ IIr'CEffi09! 'F T Ii !leletAAet' I I f Ie 'RI Q . N"I" iI! e 9 .I, " • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • -------1R{~ffi1t@illl e MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2013 TO: Pre-Application File No. 13-000088 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Tiffany Park Plat (Renton School District Property) 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 andlor 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 online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at the dead end of SE lSth St bordered by the Seattle Water line on the east and south sides of the site. Division 4 of the Tiffany Park subdivision is located to the north and west of the site. The applicant is proposing a 99-lot subdivision of a 22.41-acre site, which is primarily located within the R-8 zoning classification, with a small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-S zoning classification. The proposed lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single-family homes. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access along the northeastern border of the site. Internal residential access streets are proposed to provide access to each lot. The site contains two Category 2 wetlands and is located within Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Current Use: The site is currently vacant and is owned by the Renton School District. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is located within the R-S 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 (dulac). The area of public and private streets and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density. It is unclear how much area would be dedicated to critical areas, access easements, and right-of-way therefore the net density of site could not be calculated. The applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the density requirements 0/ the zone at the time of/ormalapplicatlon. RECEIVED NOV 142013 i:\rtimmons\preapps\13-000088 (r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access).doc CITY Cr I'.!ENTOtJ PLANNING DIVISION .. Tiffany Park, PRE13-000a Page 2 of 4 February 7, 2013 • Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-8 standards" herein). 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 lot 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 lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. The proposal appears to comply with the lot size, width and depth requirements of the zone. 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 and a maximum impervious surface of 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. 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 aI/lots. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required setbacks in the R-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,S feet on interior side yards, and 15 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements but not shared driveways) for the primary structure and 20 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements but not shared driveways) for the attached garage. The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Access/Parking: Access to site is proposed via an extension of SE 18'h St which proposes a potential connection to Pierce Ave SE. An internal grid system is proposed which includes a 50- foot wide public street terminating in two cul-de-sacs. The applicant would be required to provide a 53-foot right of way, for the internal street, or request and have approved a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width to 50 feet.' The applicant has not provided adequate justification to support such a modification request. i:\rtimmons\preapps\13-000088 (r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access).doc .' Tiffany Park, PRE13-000ce Page 3 of 4 February 7, 2013 • Alley: Alley access is the preferred access pattern. The applicant would be required to redesign the plat in order to provide an alley lor the two-tier lots. All lots abutting the alley would be required to take access off 0/ the olley. 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 0/ Short 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% 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. Critical Areas: The project site appears to contain two Category 2 wetlands. The applicant will be required to provide an updated wetland reconnaissance and delineation. In addition, 1/ impacts are proposed to the wetlands or their buffers the applicant would be required to provide a conceptual mitigation plan. The City's approved consultant list is enclosed in the information packet. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. The standard Category 2 wetland buffer is 50-feet. All critical areas and buffers are required to be placed in a tIIative Growth Protection Easement (tIIGPE). City of Renton's Critical Areas maps also indicate the subject site is located within the Aquifer Protection Zone. The overall purpose of the aquifer protection regulations is to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination by hazardous materials. Some uses are restricted that store, handle, treat, use, or produce substances that pose a hazard to groundwater quality. 1/ /III Is used, then a /III source statement Is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain whether additional critical areas are present on the site. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. Environmental Review: Environmental (SEPA) Review is required for projects nine lots or greater, or on sites that contain critical areas. Therefore SEPA would be required for the proposed subdivision. Permit Requirements: i:\rtimmons\preapps\13-000088 (r-8 tiffany park, rsd, wetlands, access).doc .., ) ------------------- • • PROJECT NARRATIVE Reserve at Tiffany Park (Revised June 9, 2014) Existing Site Characteristics: City of Renton Planning Division The project site is 21.66 acres in size (or 943,331 square feet). The property consists of four tax parcels (212305-9044-02,212305-9051-02,212305-9054-09, and 212305-9061-00). There are no structures on the site, which is covered with mixed deciduous/coniferous trees commonly found in the Pacific Northwest. The site generally slopes from the east to west (approximately 40 feet in elevation), with an average slope ranging from 10% to 15%; however, in a small localized area, the slope reaches 25%. (Please see the ALTA Survey prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated July 7, 2013.) The dominant on-site tree species are Cottonwood, Alder, Big Leaf Maple, Douglas fir, Western Red Cedar, and Western Hemlock that reach up to 36 inches in diameter (please see the Tree Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. dated November 13, 2013 and amended June 6, 2014). All significant trees on the site have been surveyed (6-inch diameter at breast height [DBH] or greater) and are shown and identified on the ALTA Survey. The understory cover is predominately Salmonberry, Vine Maple, Western Hazelnut, Sword fern, Salal, Oregon grape, and Pacific Blackberry. The on-site soils consist of approximately 1 to 1.9 feet of topsoil; with an underlying "glacial till" soil (Vashon Lodgement Till). Please see the geotechnical report prepared by Associated Earth Science, Inc. dated September 28,2012. Glacial till soils are generally suited for residential development and are one of the more common soil types in and around the City of Renton. There are five separate wetlands located on the site that have been delineated and surveyed (please see the Wetland Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz dated October 30, 2013, first amendment February 28, 2014 and second amendment June 3, 2014). These wetlands have ratings of Category 2 and Category 3. There are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals on the site as outlined in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for Reserve at Tiffany Park dated January 2014 (including the amendment dated February ii, 2014 and project memo dated June 12, 2014) prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC. Access to the site is via an existing public roadway stub (S.E. 18th Street), which is located at the northwest corner of the property. A second public access point is designated as 124th Place S.E., which is stubbed to a point near the southwest corner of the property. This public roadway is separated from the project's south property line by the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way (approximately 100 feet). An agreement with Seattle Public Utilities will be required to allow the roadway to cross the pipeline right-of- way. For further information regarding access and traffic, please see the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by The Transpo Group, Inc. dated November 2013 and amended April 2014. The project site is surrounded by existing single-family subdivisions; however, along the south property line is the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way and along the east property line is the Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way. These utility rights-of-way are cleared for the most part and include maintenance roads that are gated for security; however, the right-of-way is used by local residents for passive recreation purposes such as walking. - 1 - 16055.010.doc • • Project Proposal: The project proposal is for a 97 -lot single-family detached subdivision known as the "Reserve at Tiffany Park." The average lot size is 5,399 square feet, with the smallest lot being 4,500 square feet and the largest lot being 8,456 square feel. The overall project density is 5.70 dwelling units per net acre, which is below the maximum allowed under the current zoning of R-8. For more detailed information, please reference the revised Preliminary Plat Map prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated January 28,2014 and amended June 3,2014. The project development plan includes a proposed on-site private passive park (1.39 acres). This park will be located over the proposed storm detention vault and will include landscaping, open lawn recreation area, irrigation, benches, tables, and a walking trail. The property is zoned R-8 (as well as the adjacent properties), which requires a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots. All lots within this proposal either meet or exceed the zoning development standards. As required by City code, all single-family residences will be subject to the Residential Design Standards. Other permits required for this development include the following: . • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review • Preliminary plat approval • Construction plan approval (water, sewer, roads, storm, and grading) • Final plat approval and recording • Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Permit • Department of Ecology NPDES Permit • Residential Building Permits • Access approval from the City of Seattle across the Cedar River Pipeline • Water easement from City of Seattle across Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-Way As designed, there are approximately 3,300 lineal feet of proposed (on site) public right-of-way, which will be 53 feet wide with 26 feet of paving, curb, gutter, planter (8 feet wide), and sidewalk (5 feet wide) on both sides. The internal roadway network has been designed to provide connectivity, grid design, hardscape to protect the adjacent wetlands, and two short cul-de-sacs (both of which are less than 350 feet in length). There are four shared private access easements that serve up to three lots each. Two access points will be used to provide access to the subdivision as required by the City of Renton for circulation purposes and for public safety (emergency services). The proposed development provides wetland buffers as allowed by City regulations and as recommended in the wetland analysis. Each of the on-site wetlands will be protected within designated sensitive area open space tracts that will be owned and maintained by the project's Homeowners' Association (HOA). In addition to the wetlands, the sensitive area tracts also include additional area for the protection of significant trees, tree mitigation, and to provide a buffer "make-up" area for the proposed buffer averaging provisions allowed by code. Additionally, a private park (passive -1.39 acres) is proposed in Tract A. The total area for all sensitive areas and native/passive open space being provided is 5.41 acres or 25% of the site. The project development will utilize and extend existing City of Renton public utilities throughout the project site (water, sewer, and storm), as well as dry utilities (power, telephone, natural gas, and cable) to - 2 - 16055.010.doc I / • • serve all lots. Please reference the conceptual utility plans prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. for more detailed information. The revised project will also include an underground detention vault designed to the City of Renton Storm Drainage Manual standards and will include a StormFilter vault for water quality. The original proposal included an open-water storm pond in the same general location. Stormwater will be discharged into a new 18-inch storm pipe to be constructed in S.E. 18th Street approximately 600 feet west of the property boundary where it will connect to an existing storm line in Lake Youngs Way S.E. For more detailed information regarding the proposed storm system, please reference the preliminary storm plan and Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. In order to construct the project as generally depicted on the preliminary grading plan, approximately 17.64 acres will be cleared. Approximately 22,000 cubic yards of topsoil will be stripped and removed from the site or retained for use on site after structural grading is completed. Approximately 70,000 cubic yards of structural soil will be cut for grading the roads and lots. A majority of this cut material will be used on site to construct the project to the final design grades. Any excess structural material will be exported from the site during construction along with any excess topsoil. These figures are approximate and will be determined at final engineering design. The total cost of construction for the roads and utilities is estimated to be approximately $8.8 million (or $90,000 per lot). The estimated fair market value of the lots upon completion is estimated to be between $180,000 and $200,000. We have not yet established the location of any model homes, job shacks, or a sales office. Wetlands/Buffer Averaging: All five wetlands located on site will be protected. No wetland fills are proposed with this application. These wetlands (and their buffers) will be located within four separate permanent open space tracts. We are proposing a limited amount of buffer averaging for design flexibility in several locations around the perimeter of the wetlands, which is allowed by the City of Renton codes. However, we have also provided substantially more buffer area around each wetland than the area being reduced in each case, resulting in much larger overall buffer area than required by code. (Please see the revised buffer averaging plan and wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz dated February 28, 2014 and amended June 3, 2014). As indicated in the Wetland Report, the proposed buffer additions (through averaging) will continue to have the physical characteristics necessary to protect water quality and wetland hydrologic functions, including flood storage. . Tree InventorylTree Mitigation: Based on the Final Tree Protection Plan (second amendment) prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. dated June 6, 2014, there are 1,305 significant trees on site (please see the tree retention worksheet amended June 6, 2014). As required by code, 30% of the significant trees (approximately 188 trees) must be protected or mitigation provided (tree replacement). The revised site plan (dated June 3, 2014) proposes to retain 147 healthy significant trees. As required by code, we are mitigating the reduction of 41 Significant trees by installing 246 replacement trees within the perimeter buffers/native open space and within the proposed on-site park. The actual number of replacement trees will vary dependent on the final number of significant trees to be mitigated for once the final engineering plans are prepared. This meets the requirement for mitigation as required by the City of Renton. -3-16055.010.doc , " • • General Construction Information Reserve at Tiffany Park (Revised February 28,2014) The construction of new road improvements along with the installation of utilities for the proposed plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park will involve clearing, grading, and other land disturbance activities. The following is a summary of how these activities are expected to be carried out and managed to minimize impacts and comply with applicable rules and regulations during this phase of the project: • Anticipated Construction Schedule: Clearing and grading is likely to begin in early 2015 assuming the entitlements and permits are approved. The bulk of the work should be completed between March and November 2015. Based on this schedule, we expect that the plat could be ready for recording in late 2015 or early 2016, with home building to commence after the plat is recorded. Model home construction may commence prior to recording as allowed by the City of Renton. • Hours and Days of Operation: The typical hours of operation for construction will be from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the winter months. During the summer months, construction will begin at 7 a.m. and may extend to 7 p.m. (pending approval from the City of Renton). The typical wonk week will be Monday through Friday. Construction wonk may also take place on Saturday, as normally allowed by the City of Renton, especially during the dry season (April to October) in order to expedite completion of the project during the dry season. • Proposed Hauling/Transportatlon Routes: The haul route for importing or exporting materials to and from the site will be determined after coordination with the City of Renton Inspector prior to the start of construction. However, we would anticipate that the haul route would start at 124th Place S.E. (to avoid conflicts with traffic in and around Tiffany Park Middle School) and then utilize S.E. 158th Street to Kirkland Avenue and finally to 116th Avenue S.E. • Measures to be Implemented to Minimize Dust, Traffic and Transportation Impacts, Erosion, Noise, and other Construction Impacts: All temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures required by the City of Renton and other agencies will be implemented and maintained (e.g., rock construction entrance, sil~t _-----_ fencing, temporary storm pond, and straw mulching). Also, as required by DOE,.JlII~~ :-- BMPs will be implemented and maintained as required by the NPUES FGliiiIL 10/ life dUr~U:©1TIl 0 of the project. Watering will be implemented, as necessary, to control dust C\tI~., Ivlslon summer months and all construction equipment will be equipped with appropriatR rPS E 0 comply with local noise ordinances. I Date RECEIVED MAR 0 3 20 14 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION - 1 - 16055009.doc . . ' • • • Any Special Hours Proposed for Construction or Hauling (i.e., weekends, late nights): If it is determined that additional hours are needed to complete the construction, the contractor will coordinate with the City of Renton and obtain approval for such extended hours. • Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: A Preliminary Traffic Control Plan has not been prepared at this time. Once the haul route(s) has(have) been approved by the City Public Works Department, a traffic control plan will be prepared in accordance with the City Road Standards and WSDOT guidelines. ·2-16055 009.doc < , • PLANNING DIVISI.ON • City of Fenton Planning ivision ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST JUU6 .014 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can . . You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays 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 oftime oron 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 y·our answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining ifthere may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively . 160SS.011.doc • 1 -06/09 • A. BACKGROUND 1. . Name of proposed project, if applicable: Reserve at Tiffany Park 2. Name of applicant: Henley USA LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant Henley USA LLC 11100 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 4. Date checklist prepared: Contact Barbara Yarington (425) 709-6557 Agent Wayne Potter Navastar Development Inc. (425) 656-7435 November 7, 2013; 1st amendment February 28, 2014; 2nd amendment dated June 9, . 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Clearing and road construction is likely to begin in early 2015. At this time, there are no plans to phase the project. Construction of the project is expected to take 12 months for site development and onother 24 to 36 months for home construction. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Stormwoter Technical Information Report (TlR) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated November 2013; revised February 24, 2014 • Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences dated September 28, 2012 • Transportation Impact Analysis {TIA} prepared by the Transpo Group dated November 2013; amended April 2014 • Wetland Determination Regort prepared by C. Gary Schulz Wetland/Forest Ecologist dated October 30, 2013; 1 t amendment dated February 28, 2014; 2 nd amendment dated June 3, 2014 • Tree Protection Plan and Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. dated November 13, 2013; 1st amendment February 26, 2014; 2n amendment June 6,2014 • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment prepared by Soundview Consultants dated January 2014; 1st amendment February 11, 2014; project memo dated June 12,2014 160!?5.011.doc ·2· 06109 • • 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. No. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Preliminary Plat approval • Construction plan approvals (water, sewer, roads, storm, and grading) • Ancillary construction permits including building permits for retaining walls and the underground storm detention vault • Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Permit • Department of Ecology NPDES Permit • Final plat approval • Building Permits for residential homes • Residential design standards review • Approval to establish public access across the Seattle Public Utilities right-of-way at 124th Place 5. E. stub road and to extend public utilities • Right-of-way permit for storm installation in S.E. 18th Street. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The project involves the subdivision of approximately 21.66 acres of land encompassing four tax parcels into 97 single-family detached homes and associated open space tracts. Ten (Tract B, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, Land M) sensitive area/open space tracts are proposed encampassing approximately 4.02 acres (or 18.6% of the site) to preserve existing wetlands and significant trees. Additionally, a private park (passive) is proposed in Tract A (approximately 1.39 acres), which is also the location of the proposed underground storm water vault. The total open space being provided (native/passive) is 5.41 acres or 25% of the site. There will be approximately 3,300 linear feet of public roadway (with utilities) constructed to serve the proposed lots. The proposed lots and roads will be cleared and mass-graded including the construction of necessary retaining walls. 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 subject property is located in Section 21-23-05 and approximately 1/10 of a mile southeast of Tiffany Park Elementary School. Access to the property is from S.E. 18th Street and 124th Place S.E. (if extended). For the exact location, please reference the attached Vicinity Map. 1605S.011.doc -3· 06/09 • • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); lfla~, lrollingj, IfiTI@, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The project site has on overage slope between 10 and 15%; however, there is a small isalated area with a 25% slope. 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 primary soil classification faund an the site is Vashan Ladgement Till (also known as Glacial Till/Alderwood Series), which is a sandy gravelly sail cammanly found in the Pacific Narthwest and generally suitable for residential develapment. Please reference the Soils Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 16055.011.doc A preliminary grading plan has been prepared far this praject. We anticipate the an-site structural grading ta reasanably balance (appraximately 70,000 cubic yards af cut and fill). The an-site strippings (tapsoil) is estimated at 22,000 cubic yards and will either be spread an the finished lats and/or exported off site, along with any excess structural materiol thot cannot be used on site. A number of retaining walls will be constructed on site as part of the grading operatian. These walls may include rockeries, MSE block, Lock-Load, and Reinforced Cancrete Walls. The construction of these walls will include excavation for footings, drainage, and back/ill. Where walls are located adjacent to open space tracts, there will be incidental grading that may extend approximately 5 feet into the adjacent future open space tracts or as otherwise depicted on the preliminary engineering plans for temporary construction purposes. Such areas will be re-vegetated upon completion. There will also be additional lot grading that will occur (on a lot by lot basis) during the home construction phase as foundations are constructed. Imported aggregate materials used far construction of the raads and infrastructure as well as for house foundations will be imported as needed from nearby avoiloble sources, most likely from pits in the Maple Valley or Covington area. -4-06/09 r-~~~~~~--~-------- • • f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Soil erosion could occur as a result of the site clearing, excavation, and grading activities once soils are exposed to rainfall. However, as required by City Code, a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) will be prepared and implemented to mitigate for such erosion potential. Additionally, erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be provided (i.e., straw mulch, silt fences, rock check dams, etc.}. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The total on-site impervious surface (roadways) will be approximately 4.15 acres (or 19%) of the site area (21.66 acres). Based on a maximum impervious area per lot of 75%, we have estimated a total impervious area (for 97 lots with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet) of approximately 9.02 acres. Combined, approximately 13.17 acres, or approximately 61% of the site will be impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR All applicable BMPs and other typical and necessary TESC measures will be implemented and maintained during the plat and home construction phases. An NPDES permit will be acquired and the site will be monitored during the entire build-out phase of the plat. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During plat and home construction, emissions from construction equipment and vehicles will occur on a temporary basis. When houses are completed, there will be emissions generated from automobile, service truck traffic, and other typical machinery used in single-family neighborhoods. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The site is surraunded by existing single-family developments that are the source of emissions fram fireplaces and vehicles. In addition, the site is lacated close to arterial streets such as S.E. Petrovitsky Road and 140th Avenue S.E. (Fairwood Boulevard) and nearby urban centers with a high concentration of vehicular traffic. These sources and emissions are typical of urban communities and are not expected to have any impact on the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 1605S.011.doc All construction equipment will be equipped to comply with all applicable air- quolity regulations. Dust will be controlled during the dry season with water -5-06/09 • • trucks. Gas fireplaces will be used in accordance with requirements of the Puget Sound Air Quality Board. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 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 are five isolated wetlands locoted on site noted as A, B, C, D and E in the Wetlond Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz, two of which are lacated in close proximity ta each other. All of the wetlands will be preserved in an undisturbed condition in four seporate permanent open space tracts. 2) 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. A portion of the plot and home construction will occur within 200 feet of the on-site wetlands where buffer averaging is allowed pursuant to City standords. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) 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. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? 16055.011.doc Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The project will be served by public water and sanitary sewer service from the City of Renton. The project will not involve any groundwater withdrawals or any discharge to the groundwater of septic system effluent. Some roof drains will be designed to discharge to the on-site wetlands for recharging purposes. No discharges to the groundwater aquifer are proposed. -6· 06/09 • 2} 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 chemicals ... ; 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. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1} Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Storm water will be collected by a series of catch basins and conveyed by underground stormwater pipes to an on-site underground stormwater detention vault designed in accardance with the City of Renton Storm water Design Manual (Addendum to the King County storm water guidelines). Prior to discharging the stormwater to the existing system in Lake Youngs Way s.E., the woter will be treated by a stormFilter vault for water quality. A new 18-inch pipe will be constructed in S.E. 18th Street to convey the treated storm water to the existing public system in Lake Youngs Way S.E. 2} Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Unlikely. As discussed above, all storm water will be collected and conveyed to an approved detention vault. Furthermore, the storm water will pass through a storm filter vault (water quality) prior to discharge off site. All sewage disposal will be via the City sewer system. No on-site septic systems are proposed. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The project will be designed in accordance with all applicable storm drainage . regulations of the City of Renton and other agencies to mitigate the impocts of surface water drainage. This will include all necessary erasion control measures during construction as well as construction of an on-site and off-site collection/conveyance system for storm water as well as a water quality and detention facility. (For a more detailed discussion, see the attached stormwater TIR prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.). 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _L deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _L evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 16055.011.doc _L shrubs _L grass __ pasture crop or grain _L wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, mi!foil, other other types of vegetation • 7 • 06/09 • b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Upon completion of the project, all vegetation within the develapable partion of the property (approximately 17.64 acres) will be removed/altered. , c. list threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: As required by code, 30% of the significant trees (approximately 188) must be protected or mitigatian provided (tree replacement). As outlined in the current propasal, we anticipate preserving 147 significant trees and mitigating far the remaining 41 significant trees by providing 246 replacement trees within the buffers and open spaces. The final number of significant trees to be saved or mitigated for will be determined throughout final engineering and construction. Some minor clearing of brush and understory may be required in some of the open space areas to accommodate the planting of replacement trees. In addition, some incidental clearing and grading will occur along the perimeter of these open space areas to allow for the construction of retaining walls and fencing. All such areas shall be fully re-vegetated upon completion as required by the City of Renton. We will olso be preserving and protecting the on-site wetlands and buffers, as approved by the City, in designated open space areas as wildlife habitat. The existing trees to be saved are located in native open space trocts, which total 4.02 acres, or 18.6% of the site. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: _L Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ________ _ _ L Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other.,--. _______ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _ b. list any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Please reference the Fish and Wildlife Assessment and Amendment prepared by Soundview Consultants. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No. Please reference the Fish and Wildlife Assessment and Addendum prepared by Soundview Consultants. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 16055.011.doc Substantial native habitat will be provided on site through preservation of approximately 4.02 acres of permanent native open space trocts. Please also • B • 06/09 • • reference the Fish and Wildlife Assessment and Addendum prepared by Soundview Consultants. 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. Each lot will require power, natural gas, cable, and phone service. Power and natural gas will be the primary saurce for heating. 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: All future homes will be designed in accordance with the Washington State Energy Code. Also, as required by code, the streetlights will use LED luminaires to reduce electrical consumption. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Unlikely. However, during constructian there is always the risk of an accident invalving construction equipment and hozardous ar flammable materials during hame construction. These risks are common to all construction sites. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Medicol EMT response and Fire Department response. 2) Proposed measwes to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: All construction will be in accordance with applicable laws including OSHA safety regulations. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 1605S.011.doc Existing sources of noise in the immediate area are residential automobile traffic, service trucks, and home care activities, as well as regional urban noises commonly found in population centers. -9-06/09 • 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated 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. During the construction phase there will be short term impacts to noise levels from the operation of heavy equipment and truck traffic, as well as contractor tools. These impacts will be generated only during the hours of operation and will terminate permanently upon completion of construction. Upon occupancy of the homes, there will be added noise impacts fram residential vehicles and activities, consistent with what is already found in the surrounding community. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: All eqUipment and construction operations will comply with applicable City of Renton noise ordinances. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant undeveloped land. Adjacent properties include single-family residential and public utility right-of-way. The praperty is owned by the Renton School District but has been deemed surplus property by the District and will not be developed as a school facility. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not opplicable. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Single-family, R-B. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not applicable. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. 1605S.D11.doc -10-06/09 • • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. There are isolated wetlands located on site. For additianal information, please review the Wetland Report (revised) prepared by C. Gary Schulz. Also, the site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. i. ApprOXimately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The 97 lots are expected to bring approximately 243 people to the project after all homes are built and occupied (this assumes an average of 2.5 people per home). This number will vary depending on house size. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicoble. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: As part of the preliminary plat process, the project will be reviewed in accordance with the R-B development standards, which are compatible with the surrounding property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. There are 97 lots proposed, which will create housing in the middle to 'upper income range. b. ApprOXimately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are propased or required. 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. 1605S.011.doc The tallest structure would be a single-family home, which has a maximum height as established in the zoning code of 35 feet withaut a variance. -11 -06/09 r· • b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: All future homes within the project will be subject to the City building design standards at the time of building permit review. In addition, the new homes to be built in this project will be single-family residences as found in the surrounding community. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Construction is expected to be in the daytime hours only. During night time there may be streetlight illumination and car headlights as well as both interior and exterior lighting in houses typically found in single-family subdivisions. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: AI/lighting related to streetlights and houses will be designed in accordance with City code regulations to avoid impact to adjacent properties. Due to the open space areas provided within the project, light and glare from the internal streets will be screened in many locations, therefore reducing impacts. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The subject property is located within approximately 600 feet of Tiffany Park Elementary School, which provides some limited recreation opportunities. Also, the site is within 1,000 feet of Tiffany Park, which is connected by pedestrian pathways to the Tiffany-Cascade Connector open space and to Cascade Park. Also, abutting the east and south property lines are the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way and Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way that provide walking troils used by the public. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. 1605S.011.doc ·12· 06/09 • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project will be providing a private passive recreation area (Tract A, 1.39 acres) that will include trails, benches, tables, lawn play area, and landscaping. Furthermore, each Building Permit will be required to pay a parks impact fee to the City of Renton as required by existing codes. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. 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: Not applicable. 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. The project site will gain access from S.£. 18th Street, which currently stubs directly to the site near the southwest corner. A second access will be provided via 124th Place S.E., which currently stubs to the southeast side of the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way opposite the subject property near the southeast corner. A public easement will be acquired over the Cedar River Pipeline right-of- way to extend this public roadway into the project. Please reference the project site plan for the exact location of the public streets. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 16055.011.doc Each lot will have a minimum of two off-street parking stalls. No parking will be eliminated. -13-06/09 • • d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? There will be appraximately 3,300 linear feet of new on-site public roadways designed as "residential access raads," which require 26 feet of paving, curb and gutter, 8-foot planter strips, and 5-foat sidewalks an each side (53 feet of right- of-way). 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. Please see the Traffic Impact Analysis (TJA) prepared by The Transpo Group. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Please see the T1A prepared by The Transpo Graup. 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. The future construction of homes on each of the 97 lots will result in a proportional need for public services normally associated with Single-family development such as police, fire, health care, schools, postal service, garbage service, etc. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Building the on-site roads to public standards will provide an acceptable means of access for any needed public services to existing lots. Property tax revenue will assist with offsetting the proportional impact on public services. Mitigation fees will be collected at the time of building permit for individual lots to offset traffic, fire, and school impacts. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currentl available at the site: lelectricit\A, Inatural gaSi. ~ Irefuse serviCe\, ele hon Isanitary sewed, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following is a list of the anticipated utility purveyors: • Electricity Puget Power 16055.011.doc -14 -06/09 • 0 • Natural Gas Puget Pawer • Water City of Renton • Sewer City of Renton • Telephone CenturyLink • Coble T.V. Comcast • Garbage Waste Management (contract with the City of Renton) All utilities are available at the project site. However, to provide a water system laap, we are extending approximately 300 lineal feet af an 8-inch water main fram the praject's east baundary line (Tract E) across the Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way to S.E. 20th Court. Also, to ensure proper storm water discharge, we are installing a new storm conveyance system in S.E. 18th Street to Lake Youngs Way S.E. (approximately 600 lineal feet of new 18-inch storm conveyance pipe). c. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation r willful I k of full disclosu on my part. Proponent Signature~. ~~~-.!..~~ Name Printed: Date: June 10, 2014 , 16055.011.doc -15 -06/09 ------------------- • • trucks. Gas fireplaces will be used in accordance with requirements af the Puget Sound Air Quality Board. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity af 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 are five isalated wetlands located on site noted as A, B, C, D and E in the Wetland Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz, two of which are lacated in close proximity to each other. All of the wetlands will be preserved in an undisturbed condition in four separate permanent open space tracts. 2) 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. A partion of the plat and home construction will occur within 200 feet of the on-site wetlonds where buffer averaging is allowed pursuant to City standards. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a lOa-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) 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. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? 1605S.011.doc Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The project will be served by public water and sanitary sewer service from the City of Renton. The project will not involve any groundwater withdrawals or any discharge to the groundwater of septic system effluent. Some roof drains will be designed to discharge to the on-site wetlands for recharging purposes. No discharges to the groundwater aquifer are proposed. -6-06/09 r • • 2) 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 chemicals ... ; 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. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Storm water will be collected by a series of catch basins and conveyed by underground starmwater pipes ta an an-site underground storm water detentian vault designed in accordance with the City of Renton Starmwater Design Manual (Addendum to the King Caunty stormwater guidelines). Priar ta discharging the stormwater to the existing system in Lake Youngs Way S.E., the water will be treated by a StormFilter vault for water quality. A new 18-inch pipe will be constructed in S. E. 18th Street to convey the treated storm water ta the existing public system in Lake Youngs Way S.E. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Unlikely. As discussed above, all stormwater will be collected ond conveyed to on opproved detention vault. Furthermore, the stormwoter will pass through a storm filter vault (woter quality) prior to discharge off site. All sewage disposal will be via the City sewer system. Na on-site septic systems are proposed. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The project will be designed in accordance with all applicable storm drainage regulations of the City of Renton and other agencies to mitigate the impacts of sUrface water drainage. This will include all necessary erosion control measures during construction as well as construction af an on-site and off-site collection/conveyance system for storm water as well as a water quality and detention facility. (For a more detailed discussion, see the attached storm water TlR prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.). 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _L deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _L evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 1605S.011.doc _L shrubs _L gross __ pasture crop or grain _L wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cobbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, mil foil, other other types of vegetation -7-06/09 • • b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Upon completion of the project, oil vegetation within the developable portion of the property (approximately 17.64 acres) will be removed/altered. , c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: As required by code, 30% of the significant trees (approximately 188) must be protected or mitigation provided (tree replacement). As outlined in the current proposal, we anticipate preserving 147 significant trees and mitigating for the remaining 41 significant trees by providing 246 replacement trees within the buffers and open spaces. The final number af significant trees to be saved or mitigated for will be determined throughaut final engineering and construction. Some minar clearing of brush and understory may be required in some of the open space areas to accommodate the planting of replacement trees. In addition, some incidental clearing and grading will occur along the perimeter of these open space areas to allow for the construction of retaining walls ond fencing. All such areas shall be fully re-vegetated upon completion as required by the City of Renton. We will also be preserving and protecting the on-site wetlands and buffers, as approved by the City, in designated open space areas as wildlife habitat. The existing trees to be saved are located in native open space trocts, which total 4.02 acres, or 18.6% of the site. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: _L Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other _______ _ _ L Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: boss, salmon, trout, herring, shellfis'h-, o-t"h-e-r------- b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Please reference the Fish and Wildlife Assessment and Amendment prepared by Soundview Consultants. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No. Please reference the Fish and Wildlife Assessment and Addendum prepared by Soundview Consultants. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 16055.011.doc Substantial native habitat will be provided on site through preservation of approximately 4.02 acres of permanent native open spoce trocts. Please also -8-06109 ------------------------------ • • reference the Fish and Wildlife Assessment and Addendum prepared by Saundview Consultants. 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. Each lot will require power, natural gas, cable, and phone service. Power and natural gas will be the primary source for heating. 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: All future homes will be designed in accordance with the Washington State Energy Code. Also, as required by code, the streetlights will use LED luminaires to reduce electrical consumption. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Unlikely. However, during construction there is always the risk of an accident involving construction equipment and hazardous or flammable materials during home construction. These risks are common to all construction sites. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Medical EMT respanse and Fire Department response. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: All construction will be in accordance with applicable laws including OSHA safety regulations. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 16055.011.doc Existing sources of noise in the immediate area are residential automobile traffic, service trucks, and home care activities, as well as regional urban noises commonly found in population centers. -9-06/09 r ------------------------------------------------ • • 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated 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. During the construction phose there will be short term impacts to noise levels from the operation of heavy equipment and truck traffic, as well as can tractor tools. These impacts will be generated only during the hours of operation and will terminate permanently upon completion of construction. Upon occupancy of the homes, there will be added noise impacts from residential vehicles and activities, consistent with what is already found in the surrounding community. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: All equipment and construction operations will comply with applicable City of Renton noise ordinances. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant undeveloped land. Adjacent properties include single-family residential and public utility right-of-way. The property is owned by the Renton School District but has been deemed surplus property by the District and will not be developed as a school facility. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Single-family, R-B. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not applicable. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. 1605S.011.doc -10 -06/09 ------------------------- • • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. There are isolated wetlands located on site. For additional information, please review the Wetland Report (revised) prepared by C. Gary Schulz. Also, the site is located in Zone 2 'of the Aquifer Protection Area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The 97 lots are expected to bring approximately 243 people to the project after all homes are built and occupied (this assumes an average of 2.5 people per home). This number will vary depending on house size. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: As part of the preliminary plat process, the project will be reviewed in accordance with the R-B development standards, which are compatible with the surrounding property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. There are 97 lots proposed, which will create housing in the middle ta ~upper income range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are proposed or required. 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. 16055.011.doc The tallest structure would be a single-family home, which has a maximum height as established in the zaning code of 35 feet without a variance. • 11 • 06/09 • • b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: All future homes within the project will be subject to the City building design standards at the time of building permit review. In addition, the new homes to be built in this project will be single-family residences as found in the surrounding community. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Construction is expected to be in the daytime hours only. During night time there may be streetlight illumination and car headlights as well as both interior and exterior lighting in houses typically found in single-family subdivisions. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All lighting related to streetlights and houses will be designed in accordance with City code regulations to avoid impact to adjacent properties. Due to the open space areas provided within the project, light and glare from the internal streets will be screened in many locatians, therefore reducing impacts. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The subject property is located within approximately 600 feet of Tiffany Park Elementary School, which provides some limited recreation opportunities. Also, the site is within 1,000 feet of Tiffany Park, which is connected by pedestrian pathways to the Tiffany-Cascade Connector open space and to Cascade Park. Also, abutting the east and sauth praperty lines are the Cedar River Pipeline right-af-way and Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way that provide walking trails used by the public. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. 16055.011.doc -12 -06/09 ,. • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project will be providing 0 private passive recreation orea (Troct A, 1.39 acres) that will include trails, benches, tables, lawn play area, and landscaping. Furthermore, each Building Permit will be required to pay a parks impact fee to the City of Renton as required by existing codes. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. 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: Not applicable. 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. The project site will gain access from S. E. 18th Street, which currently stubs directly to the site near the southwest corner. A second access will be provided vio 124th Place S.E., which currently stubs to the southeast side of the Cedar River Pipeline right-af-way opposite the subject property near the southeast corner. A public easement will be acquired over the Cedar River Pipeline right-af- way to extend this public roadway into the project. Please reference the project site plan for the exact location of the public streets. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 1605S.011.doc Each lot will have a minimum of two off-street parking stalls. No parking will be eliminated. -13 • 06/09 • • d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? There will be approximately 3,300 linear feet of new on-site public roadways designed as "residential access roads," which require 26 feet of paving, curb and gutter, 8-foot planter strips, and 5-foot sidewalks on each side (53 feet of right- of-way). 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. Please see the Traffic Impact Analysis (TfA) prepared by The Transpo Group. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Please see the TIA prepared by The Transpo Group. 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. The future construction of homes on each of the 97 lots will result in a proportional need for public services normally associated with Single-family development such as police, fire, health care, schools, postal service, garbage service, etc. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Building the on-site roads to public standards will provide an acceptable means of access for any needed public services to existing lots. Property tax revenue will assist with offsetting the proportional impact on public services. Mitigation fees will be collected at the time of building permit for individual lots to offset traffic, fire, and school impacts. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currentl available at the site: lelectricitV/, Inatural ga@, ~ Irefuse servic~, ele hon ~anitary sewed, septiC system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following is a list of the anticipated utility purveyors: • Electricity Puget Power 16D5S.011.doc -14 -06/09 • • • Natural Gas Puget Pawer • Water City of Renton • Sewer City of Renton • Telephone CenturyLink • Cable T.V. Comcast • Garbage Waste Management (contract with the City of Renton) All utilities are available at the project site. However, to provide a water system loop, we are extending appraximately 300 lineal feet of an 8-inch water main from the project's east boundary line (Troct E) across the Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way to S.E. 20th Court. Also, to ensure proper storm water discharge, we are installing a new storm conveyance system in S.E. 18th Street to Lake Youngs Way S.E. (approximately 600 lineal feet of new 18-inch storm conveyance pipe). C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation r willful I k of full disdosu on my part. Proponent signature~. ~~~~~ Name Printed: Date: June 10, 2014 • 1605S.011.doc -15 -06/09 _ NoU _ WA 18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CNL ENGINEERING, J.ANb PlANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENt>J. SERVICES TtUe: Reserve at Tiffany Park Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP Job Number 16055 • C. Gary Schulz July 14,2014 Ms. Barbara Yarington C/o Mr. Wayne Potter Barghausen Consutling Engineers (Novastar Development) 18215 nnd Avenue S. Kent, Washington 98032 • WetlandlForest Ecologist 7700 s. Lakeridge Drive Seattle, Washington 98178-3135 2061772/6514 -206-920-5489 cell City of Ronton Planning Division JUL 1 II 2014 Re: Wetland Boundary Survey Adjustment for Reserve at Tiffany Park: City of Renton. Dear Ms. Barbara Yarington: This letter is written to specifically address Comment 2 -Survey Map contained in OTAK's wetland delineation review memo (Technical Memorandum -Reserve at Tiffany Park 7/9/14 OTAK) for the Reserve at Tiffany Park residential project. During our joint field meeting on 5/7/14, OTAK noted several wetland boundary points that needed slight adjustment at Wetland A. This discrepancy was based on a few wetland boundary survey stakes that were located just inside the agreed upon wetland boundary. The survey staking was provided to re-mark and locate the original plastic flags used to delineate the wetland boundaries on the site in 2013. It is very common for the original plastic flagging used in wetland delineation to move horizontally over a period time. Flagging tied to vegetation may move when there are heavy rain and wind events and as a result the vegetation breaks or bends. On-site coordination was conducted with Barghausen's surveyors on 5/9/14 to make the necessary field adjustments at the identified points along the Wetland A boundary. All staked boundary points that had been discussed with OT AK were adjusted and re- surveyed to ensure Wetland A's boundary is accurate as approved. In summary, the field adjustments to wetland boundary survey stakes were minor but have been surveyed and mapped for the current site plan. Please contact me if you have questions about the work or this letter. Ci~)JY' .~ C.Gary~ WetlandIForest Ecologist • • lt8c:>undif tf wl! Con1>ultanh= II Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Comprehensive Assessment, Planning, and Permitting Services 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: 253.514.8952 Fax: 253.514.8954 City of Renton Planning Division JUl 1 6 ZU14 Technical Memorandum To: Barbara Yarington, Henley USA File Number: 1219.0001 From: Racheal Villa, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: June 12, 2014 Re: Amendment to the Technical Memorandum for the Reserve at Tiffany Park dated February 11, 2014 Dear Barbara, Henley USA, LLC is proposing to develop ninety seven (97) single-family residential lots on a 943,331 square foot (21.66 acres) site locally known as the Reserve at Tiffany Park (Project). The subject property is located east of the intersection of Southeast 18th Street and Monroe Avenue Southeast, in the City of Renton, WA 98058 (King County). The subject property is situated in the Southeast ';" of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. and consists of four tax parcels (King County Parcel Numbers 212305-9044, 212305-9051,212305-9154, and 212305-9061). Soundview Consultants LLC prepared a fish and wildlife habitat assessment dated January 9, 2014. Subsequent project submittal to the City of Renton prompted third party review by Otak Inc. During third party review, a previously unidentified wetland (Wetland E) was identified in the western portion of the site. Project revisions were then conducted to accommodate preservation of Wetland E. These project revisions require an updated assessment of potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and protected species at the Reserve at Tiffany Park. The revised project plan includes the removal of one residential lot replaced by' Tract M for the preservation of Wetland E. No further alterations are proposed to the project. This Technical Memorandum provides an updated assessment of project impacts to fish and wildlife habitat according to the revised layout and is intended for use as an amendment to the original habitat assessment report dated January 9, 2014 and prior update provided in the Technical Memorandum by Soundview Consultants LLC, dated February 11, 2014. Proposed Revisions The proposed project revISIons include additional preservation of native open space, including wetland habitat, through establishment of Tract M. This tract is located in the 1219.0001 Novastar -Renton Fish and Wildlife Habitat Amendment Page 1 of 3 Soundview Consultants LLC June 12, 2014 • • west portion of the property, and includes the recently identified Wetland E along with additional trees and a necessary protective buffer. The previous project design contained 9 designated native open space tracts that provided protection of four previously identified wetlands and associated buffers as identified in the Wetland Determination: Reserve at Tiffany Park (Schulz, 2013). The revised project design addressed by this revised memorandum now contains 10 native open space tracts. This revised plan proposes the addition of Tract M for Wetland E providing an additional 5,850 square feet (0.13 acre) of native open space area and an increase in overall protected wetland area. The previously identified wetland tract areas (Tracts B, K, and G) have not changed in size as a result of the revised project design. With the addition of Tract M, the overall total area of tracts with wetlands will total 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres). In addition, a total area of 56,705 square feet (1.30 acres) of native open space preserving upland forested areas, without wetland area, is also unchanged from the most recent site plans associated with the February 11, 2014 memorandum. The overall onsite native open space (wetland and significant tree preservation areas) will now total 175,199 square feet (4.02 acres) and includes Tracts B, D, F, G, H, I,], K, L, and M. The total amount of passive open space (Tract A) remains unchanged at 60,517 square feet (1.39 acres) within Tract A, providing additional community benefits for passive recreational use. Tract A is dedicated to stormwater facilities that will be installed in an underground stormwater vault and will have top soil placed over the top. The passive open space area will include foot paths, park benches, landscaping, and sod areas. Similar to the previous plan, the revision proposes to dedicate both passive and native open space, totaling 235,716 square feet (5.41 acres), which is a 2.48% increase from the 229,866 square feet (5.28 acres) previously proposed. Conclusions With the additional preservation of 5,850 square feet (0.13 acre) of wetland and buffer habitat, the overall impact to native vegetated areas will be somewhat reduced compared to those discussed in the previous memorandum dated February 11, 2014 and Chapter 5.1 of the original assessment report (Soundview Consultants, 2014) with a resultant increase in available wetland habitat over the previous site plan. As previously stated, the addition of Tract M provides adequate wetland protection and a lift in habitat function throughout the site when compared to the previous design. Any water quality impacts to "downstream" habitat in the watershed are anticipated to be addressed through the engineered facilities, similar to the discussion provided in the previously updated technical memorandum dated February 11,2014. As no sensitive or priority species were identified, nor are any anticipated to be adversely impacted by the project, the species impacts will also be similar in nature to the findings discussed in the previous memorandum and Chapter 5.2 of the original assessment. The added benefits of additional habitat and native vegetation area will further minimize project impacts to species compared to the findings of the previous assessment. 1219.0001 Novastar -Renton Fish and Wildlife Habitat Amendment Page 2 of 3 Soundview Consultants LLC June 12,2014 • • The plan revisions and additional conservation of wetland area do not require changes to the overall conservation and management recommendations discussed in the original assessment. If you have any questions or comments regarding this amendment, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ;fuU/~ Racheal Villa Senior Biologist 253.514.8952 Soundview Consultants LLC Racheal@soundviewconsultants.com 1219.0001 Novastar -Renton Fish and Wildlife Habitat Amendment Page 3 of 3 Soundview Consultants LLC June 12,2014 • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Drive Suite 400 Kirkial1d,'WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north ofSE 158"' Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3-. 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: • Wetland Determination: R£Se17ie at Tiffany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Infonnation Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site, which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. K: \project \32300\323BSA \Reports \ Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc • RocaJe TilTllnons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Resenlc at-Tiffa1f)! Park U?elland Review .. Page 2 Apni3,2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17,2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Mallual (Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should enSure that tl,e wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in me field; however, if we have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: 11,e applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-i) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farmer out man me delineated edge, specifically ncar Flags A-1, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in me RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in me revised W~tland Determination Report and project plans. K:\project\32300\32385A \Repons\CriticaJ Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Resm'e at Tiffany Park Wetlalld Review Comment 4 -Wetlands Band C • Page 3 April3, 2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of Wetlands Band C. In addition, Wetlands Band C are not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands Band C are connected (one wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-f1agged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wetland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland D We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, altl10ugh the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland D meets the criteria oudined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during tl1e early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6 -Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite werland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in line with) 18'" Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a Category 3 werland, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\projecl\32300\32385A \Repons\Critical Areas Re\-iew Mcmo_2014_0403.doc • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Resen)e at T ifJm!) Park Wetland Review ., Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Page 4 Apri13) 2014 Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site, to the north of SE 18'" Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18'h Street. Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9 -Flowpatb from Wetland B During our March 17,2014 site visit, water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3,4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The werted width of tl1e flowpath onsite on March 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and tl1erefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed '-.J ) th along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17 . Standing water was present at Wetland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams arc mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/ after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K\project\32300\32385A \Reports \ Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rem"" at TijJa'!J' Park Wetland Review Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) • Page 5 April3, 2014 The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as F AC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11 -Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-0S0.M.6.f. However, revisions to wetland edges wiillikely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary revisions to tl,e wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of tl,e plan set (preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of 60% design. Encl. Photographs I K\project\32300\32385A \Reports\Cricical Areas Re\'iew Memo_2014_0403.do<: • Rowe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rem.e 01 Tiffony Pork Wello/ld Review PHOTOGRAPHS • Photograph 1: Wetland A, near so uthern delineated edge (3/17/14) P age 6 April3, 20 14 Photograph 2. Offsite wetland o n Mercer I sland Pipeline ROW , facin g SE (3/17/14) • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rm"" at Tijfaf!y Park WeIland Review • Photograph 3. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3/17/14) Photograph 4. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3/31 /14) Page 7 April3, 20 14 • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rtseroe 01 Tiffany Park WeIland Review • Photograph 5. W ate r fl owing west o ut of We tl and B (3/17/14) Page 8 April 3, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite we tl and o n Ced ar Ri ver Pi peline R OW, fac ing SW (3/31/1 4) K.:\project \32300\32385A \Repons \Critical Are1S Review Memo_2014_0403.doc ----------------------~------------------------------------------------------ • Geotedinica{ 'Engineering Water :Resources Tnvironmenta{ Jitssessments ana :RemedIation SustainaEi{e Veve{oyment Services Geo{ogic Jitssessments • Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Serving tfie Pacific Nortfiwest Since 19B1 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report TIFFANY PARK SITE Renton, Washington Prepared for Renton School District #403 . Project No. KE120359A September 28,2012 RECEIVED NOV 14 2013 CITVO'" ~ PIA I-rllEilJTON NNiNG DIVISION associated Earth Scienc4a, Inc. ~ ~ ~ L::::l ~. ~~~~~ Serving tlie'Pacific Nortliwest Since 19B1 September 28, 2012 Project No. KE120359A Renton School District #403 Facility Operations and Maintenance 7812 South 124'" Street Seattle, Washington 98178 Attention: Subject: Mr. Rick Stracke Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Stracke: We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and limited geotechnical engineering studies. This report is based on a site topographic survey by AHBL. dated February 8, 2008. This report is intended to provide a general geotechnical feasibility analysis of the site. This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 12. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommehdations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. 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. Kirkland, Washington KDMJpclld KE1203S9A4 Projects\20 120359\KE\ WP Kirkland 425-827-7701 • Everett • Tacoma 425-259-0522 253-722-2992 www.aesgeo.com • • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT TIFFANY PARK SITE Renton, Wasbington Prepared jar: Renton School District #403 Facility Operations and Maintenance 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 September 28,2012 Project No. KE120359A Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington • 1.0 INTRODUCTION • SubsllIface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Pro;ect and Site Conditions I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and limited geotechnical engineering study for the subject site. The site location is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Figure 1. The approximate locations of explorations completed for this study, along with existing site features, are shown on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. This report is based on a topographic survey sheet that was used as a basis for Figure 2. This report should be reviewed and revised as appropriate to support any specific development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton' requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-050 J2, 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used to characterize the general geotechnical engineering properties of the site. Our study included a review of selected geologic literature, excavating exploration pits, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water. Geotechnical engineering studies were completed to formulate our preliminary recommendations for site preparation, site grading, construction, and drainage. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers an overview of geotechnical characteristics of the site, We recommend that we be allowed to review and revise this report before it is used to support any specific development plan. 1.2 Authorization This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Renton School District and their. agents for specific application to this project. Our work was performed in accordance with our scope of work and cost proposal dated August 28, 2012, We were authorized to proceed with this phase of work by means of a consultant agreement. 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 report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KEJ20359A4 -ProjecisIZ01203591KEI WP Page 1 Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington • 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION • Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions No specific development plan has been formulated for the site. We understand that this study may be used to assess general geotechnical' feasibility of potential future uses of the property. The site is relatively flat, and we anticipate that likely development proposals might include construction of low rise structures, paving for vehicle access, and buried utilities. We anticipate that these types of structures would be constructed relatively close to existing grades without the need for deep excavations or thick structural fills. The project includes four tax parcels, with a total combined area of slightly less than 22 acres. The site slopes down to the west with typically gentle slope inclinations and has a total vertical relief on the order of 50 feet. The site contains areas that meet City of Renton definitions for Geotechnical Critical Areas. Critical areas issues are discussed in detail later in this report. At the time of our reconnaissance, the site was covered with mature trees and moderate undergrowth. A series of pedestrian trails was present on-site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included excavation of 12 exploration pits with a tracked excavator. The . locations of the exploration pits were estimated based on measurements with hand-held tools from existing site features shown on the previously referenced site survey. The locations of these explorations should therefore be considered approximate. The exploration logs are presented in the Appendix. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs. where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations completed for this study. The number, locations, and depths of our explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWG/pc//d -KEI20359A4 -Projectsl201203591KEIWP Page 2 ,------------------_ ... _------------------------ Tiffany Park Site Rellloll, Washington • 3.1 Exploration Pits • SubsU/tace Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditiolls The exploration pits were excavated using a tracked excavator. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by a geologist from our firm. All exploration pits were. backfilled after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification as needed. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected geologic literature. The general distribution of geologic units is shown on the. field logs. The explorations generally encountered native materials consisting of dense lodgement till sediments. Two exploration pits on the northwest part of the site encountered zones of granular sediments with low silt content within the lodgement till which was interpreted to represent lodgement till/advance outwash transitional sediments. Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are generally consistent with the conditions shown on a published geologic map of the area. We reviewed the Geologic Map of King County, Washington, by Derek B. Booth, Kathy A. Troost, and Aaron P. Wisher, 2006. The referenced map indicates that the site is underlain by lodgement till sediments. 4.1 Stratigraphy GrasslTopsoil A surficial layer of organic topsoil was encountered at the location of each of the exploration pits. This organic layer ranged from approximately 1 to 1. 9 feet in thickness. Observed topsoil thickness is shown on the attached subsurface exploration logs. Due to their high organic content, these materials are not considered suitable for foundation, roadway, or slab- on-grade floor support, or for use in a structural fill. Vashon Lodgement Till Exploration pits encountered typically medium dense grading to very dense, silty sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders interpreted as Vashon lodgement till. The lodgement till observed in our explorations graded from medium dense and brown in the weathered zone near the surface to gray to gray-brown at depth. Lodgement till was deposited at the base of an active continental glacier and was subsequently compacted by the weight of the overlying glacial ice. Lodgement till typically possesses high-strength and low-compressibility attributes September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KEJ20359A4 -ProjecIsl20J203591KE1WP Page 3 Tiffany Park Site Relllon, Washington • • SubsUiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Repon Project and Site Conditions that are favorable for support of foundations, floor slabs, and paving, with proper preparation. Lodgement till is silty and moisture-sensitive. In the presence of moisture contents above the optimum moisture' content for compaction purposes, lodgement till can be easily disturbed by , vehicles and earthwork equipment. Careful management of moisture-sensitive soils, as rec~mmended in this report, will be needed to reduce the potential for disturbance of wet lodgement till soils and costs associated with repairing disturbed soils. 4.2 Hydrology Weak ground water seepage was observed in exploration pit EP-6 below a depth of 8 feet. Sites underlain by lodgement till sediments commonly develop a seasoll<ll perched ground water condition where surface water infiltrates into shallow weathered sediments, then encounters dense silty unweathered sediments that inhibit further downward infiltration. Ground water then becomes "perched" and tends to move laterally above the less permeable subsurface sediments. Though we did not observe perched ground water in explorations completed for this study, we anticipate that perched ground water conditions are likely to develop seasonally at this site. The previously referenced topographic survey depicts two possible wetlands on-site that were identified and surveyed by others. Based on subsurface data summarized in this report, it appears likely that these wetlands formed in closed depressions underlain by relatively low-permeability lodgement till sediments. 4.3 Infiltration Feasibility The site is underlain at shallow depths by lodgement till sediments that are not a suitable infiltration receptor. Deeper infiltration strategies that rely on deep injection wells or pit drains might be feasible at this site. Shallow explorations completed for this limited study were not intended to determine the feasibility of deep infiltration strategies. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARlli SCIENCES, INC. BWG/pc/Jd -KEJ20359A4 -Proj~c1S\20J20359'KE\WP Page 4 ~-------------------------------------- Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington • • Subsllljace Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Rep0l1 Geologic Hazards and Mitigations II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologiC, slope, and shallow ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. References to mapped critical areas are based on City of Renton Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping accessed on line. City code makes reference to critical areas maps. We have relied on City GIS mapping with the assumption that City critical areas maps are accurately depicted in the City GIS. 5.0 STEEP SLOPE HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The site contains areas mapped by the City of Renton GIS to be Sensitive Slopes, with inclinations of up to 40 percent. Sensitive slopes trigger the requirement for a Special Study in accordance with RMC Section 4-3-050 J2. The site is not mapped to contain Protected Slopes. The RMC imposes development limitations on Protected Slopes; but not Sensitive Slopes. From a practical standpoint, in our experience slopes with inclinatio'hs and heights similar to those that currently exist at the site, and which are underlain by dense lodgement till sediments, are not typically considered to be at substantial risk of slope failures. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS Earthquakes occur regularly in the Puget Lowland. Most of these events are small and are not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. Review of City GIS maps indicates that the site is not underlain by areas considered by the City of Renton to be Seismic Hazard Areas. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KEJ20359A4 -Projects\20120359\KEIWP Page 5 Tiffany PQl* Site Renton, Washington • 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture • Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations The nearest known fault to the project site is the Seattle Fault Zone. Recent studies of the Seattle Fault Zone indicate that it is an active fault zone capable of generating surface ruptures. The Seattle Fault Zone is not well understood, and is an area of active research. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies, the recurrence interval of movements along the Seattle Fault Zone is unknown, but is speculated to be on the order of 1,100 years. The site is south of the currently recognized limits of the Seattle Fault Zone. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides The site is underlain at shallow depths by lodgement till, which typically performs well from a slope stability standpoint when exposed on slopes with inclinations such as those that currently exist on-site. In its current condition the site does not appear to be at substantial risk of seismically induced landslides. 6.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a temporary loss in soil shear strength that can occur when loose granular soils below the ground water table are exposed to cyclic accelerations, such as those that occur during earthquakes. The observed site soils are very dense and silty and are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. No quantitative liquefaction analysis was completed for this study, and none is warranted for the project as currently proposed, in our opinion. 6.4 Ground Motion Structural design of buildings should follow the current applicable building code. The applicable code at the time this report was written is the 2009 International Building Code (mC). The lodgement till soils observed in our explorations are consistent with 2009 mc Site Class "C", as defined in IBC Table 1613.5.2. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The site does not contain areas identified as High Erosion Hazard Areas in the City of Renton GIS. The site may contain areas considered by the City to be Low Erosion Hazard Areas, though Low Erosion Hazard Areas are not mapped in the City of Renton GIS and RMC does not impose substantial development limitations on sites with Low. Erosion Hazards. We anticipate that any future development project on site will comply with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requirements for Construction Storm Water General Permits. We anticipate that permit conditions will require the use of Temporary Erosion and September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KE/20)59A4 -Projecl5\201203591KEIWP Page 6 ----------------- Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington • • Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations Sedimentation Controls (TESCs) in accordance with local standards of practice, completion of weekly TESC checklists, and monitoring of construction storm water turbidity and pH. 8.0 COAL MINE HAZARDS An area west of the subject property was developed with underground coal mines in the past. Depending on the proximity, depth, and nature of the underground workings, sites underlain by old coal mines may be at risk of ground subsidence or other adverse effects. Typically sites that are known to be at risk of damage from coal mine hazards are subjected to a detailed assessment that includes research of historical coal mine maps, and often deep subsurface explorations. The purpose of these studies is to determine if coal mine hazards are actually present, to characterize any hazards, and to formulate coal mine hazard mitigation measures. These studies require a substantial commitment of time and effort, and are warranted in cases where existing data suggests that coal mine hazards may be present. The site is located approximately 250 feet east of the limit of an area of Moderate Coal Mine Hazards identified on the City of Renton GIS. Review of King County Imap resources indicates that the County considers the limits of the Coal Mine Hazard Area to be farther from the site boundary than does the City of Renton. The City of Renton does not require a Special Study for areas that lie more than 50 feet outside the limits of mapped Coal Mine Hazard Areas. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) did not complete a coal mine hazard assessment as part of this study. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpc//d -KE120359A4 -Projectsl20J203591KEIWP Page 7 Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington • • SubsUiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Preliminary Design Recommendations III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is suitable for support of conventional paving, lightly-loaded structures, and typical buried utilities. Support of moderate to high foundation loads would likely be technically feasible but is not expected to be needed for a future project at this site. Any specific development plan for the site should be supported by a geotechnical engineering report written specifically for the proposed project. This report is intended to provide feasibility-lev!:l preliminary geotechnical information. 9.0 GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Site Preparation Site preparation of building and paving areas should include removal of all grass, trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious materials. Any existing fill should be removed. Existing topsoil should be stripped from structural areas. The actual observed in-place depth of topsoil and grass at the exploration locations is presented on the exploration logs in the Appendix. After stripping, remaining roots and stumps should be removed from structural areas. All soils disturbed by stripping and grubbing operations should be recompacted as described below for structural fill. Once excavation to subgrade elevation is complete, the resulting surface should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck or other suitable equipment. Any soft, loose, yielding areas or areas exposing existing fill should be excavated to expose suitable bearing soils. The subgrade should then be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density, as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1557 test procedure. Structural fill can then be placed to achieve desired grades, if needed. 9.2 Temporary Cut Slopes In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, temporary, unsupported cut slopes can be planned at 1.5H:IV (Horizontal:Vertical) in unsaturated weathered lodgement till, and at IH:IV in dense, unweathered till. These slope angles are for areas where ground water seepage is not present at the faces of the slopes, which may require temporary dewatering in the form of pumped sumps or other measures. If ground or surface water is present when the temporary excavation slopes are exposed, flatter slope angles may be required. As is typical with earthwork operations, some September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH. SCIENCES, INC. BWG/pcl/d -KE120359A4 -Projtcls120I20359IKE\ WP Page 8 .-------~----------------------------- • • Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington Subswface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Preliminary Design Recommendations sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHAIOSHA regulations should be followed at all times. 9.3 Site Disturbance The on-site soils contain fine-grained mateiial, which makes them moisture-sensltlve and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. 9.4 Winter Construction The lodgement till sediments contain substantial silt and are considered highly moisture-sensitive. We anticipate that most of the lodgement till sediments are above optimum moisture content for compaction purposes. It appears likely that soils excavated on-site will require drying during favorable dry weather conditions to allow their reuse in structural fill applications. Care should be taken to seal all earthwork areas during mass grading at the end of each workday by grading all surfaces to drain and sealing them with a smooth-drum roller. Stockpiled soils that will be reused in structural fill applications should be covered whenever rain is possible. If winter construction is expected, crushed rock fill could be used to provide construction staging areas. The stripped subgrade should be observed by the geotechnical engineer, and should then be covered with a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X, or equivalent. Once the fabric is placed, we recommend using a crushed rock fill layer at least 10 inches thick in areas where construction equipment will be used. 9.5 Structural Fill We anticipate that cuts and fills of up to about 10 feet could be required to establish subgrades for roads and buildings. Structural fill material selection and compaction standards should be determined based on the specific site development plan that is proposed. The native sediments on-site are expected to provide adequate support for structural fill if properly prepared. Excavated site soils could be used in structural fill applications but would require that earthwork be completed during favorable dry site and weather conditions when excavated materials can be aerated to reduce moisture content prior to compaction. The reuse of excavated on-site soil in structural fill applications will also require careful planning on the part of the contractor to accommodate the extreme moisture sensitivity of the site soils and to limit site disturbance. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KEJ20359A4 -Projecls120J203591KEIWP Page 9 Tiffany Park Site Remon, Washington 9.6 Foundations • • Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Repon Preliminary Design Recommendations We anticipate that natural sediments observed at shallow depths in our exploration pits will provide adequate support for lightly-loaded foundations and floor slabs with proper preparation. Typical foundation soil bearing pressures of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (pst) are feasible, Higher foundation soil bearing pressures are technically feasible with the soils we observed on-site but are not expected to be needed. 9.7 Pavement Recommendations We anticipate that properly prepared native site soils will be suitable to support pavement sections that are typical for the intended use. We recommend that any public streets be designed to City of Renton standards. Private driveways and parking areas should be designed to support actual expected traffic loads when a project plan has been formulated and pavement usage can be estimated. 10.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING This report is based on previously referenced topographic survey information and on our observations of subsurface conditions. We recommend that this preliminary geotechnical feasibility report be reviewed and modified as needed to support any specific future project. We have enjoyed working with you on this study. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Bruce W. Guenzler, L.E.G. Project Geologist Attachments: Figure 1: Figure 2: Appendix: September 28, 2012 Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Exploration Logs BWG/pc/ld -KEJ20359A4 -Projetls120J20359\KEIWP Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. Page 10 REFERENCE: USGS TOPOl Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. ----------------------- ttQll; BLACK AND IA'HrTE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR OR)GINAL MAY REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND lEAOTO INCORRECT INTERPRETATfON . VICINITY MAP TIFFANY PARK SITE RENTON, WASHINGTON N A 0 1000 2000 I I I FEET FIGURE 1 DATE 9/12 PROJ . NO . KE120359A ,---------------------------_._-_ .. _--- We!II-~lraljed gravel and gravel with sand, little to no fines Poorly-graded gravel and gravel with sand, little to no fines Clayey gravel and GC clayey gravel wllh sand Poorly-graded sand and sand with gravel, little to no fines Silty sand and SM silty sand with gravel Clayey sand and clayey sand with gravel ~--+-------------~ Slit, sandy silt, gravelly slit, ML slit with sand or gravel of low to medium ptasticlty; silty, sandy, or gravelly clay, lean clay Organic clay or silt of low plasticity Terms Describing Density and Consistency Coarse· Grained Salls Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense SPT l2)blowsffoot Oto 4 4to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50 Test Symbols G = Grain Size Consistency SPT(2)blowsffoot M = Moisture Content A = Atlerberg Limits C = Chemical Fine- Grained Salls Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard Ot02 2t04 4 t08 8to 15 15 to 30 >30 DO = Dry Density K = Permeability Descriptive Term Boulders Component Definitions Size Range and Sieve Number Larger than 12' Cobbles Gravel Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Sand Coarsa Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Slit and Clay 31 to 12- 3" to No.4 (4.75 mm) 3-to 3/4- 3/4' to No.4 (4.75 mm) No.4 (4.75 mm) 10 No 200 (0.075 mm) No. 414.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm) No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) No. 40 (0.425 mm) 10 No. 200 (0.075 mm) Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm) Estimated Percentage Moisture Content Dry ~ Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Component Percentage by Weight Trace Few Little With Sampler Type 2.0'00 Split-Spoon Sampler <5 5 to 10 15 to 25 . Non-primary coarse constituents: .::: 15% . Fines content between 5% and 15% Slightly Moist -Percepllble moisture Moist -Damp but no visible water Very Moist -Water visible but not free draining Wet -Visible free water, usually from below water table Symbols Blows/6-·or portion of 6· I " " • Sampler Type Description 3.0" 00 Split-Spoon Sampler I') Cemenl grout surface seal 8entonlle seal --~---c:-:-:-,--,-.-,,-----l (SPl) Clay of high plasticity, 3.25" 00 Split-Spoon Ring Sampler :. Filter peck with :':' blank casing :., section sandy or gravelly clay, fat Bulk sample clay with sand or gravel _+ ________ ~Grab Sample 3.0' 00 Thin-Wail Tube Sampler (Including Shalby tube) : ': Screened casing :.-or Hydrotlp ", '; with filter pack Organic clay or slit of o Portion nol recovered OH medium to high Percentage by dry weight plasticity (2) (SPl) Standard Penetration Test I--L--f#~'t--+----------I (ASTM 0-1586) b'~ .£l Peat, muck and other (3) In General Accordance with 9 ~ ~ highly organic sQils Standard Practice for Description ", End cap ('I Depth of ground waler !: ATD = At time of drilling ~ Static water level (date) (5) Combined uses symbols used for fines between 5% and 15% J: 0 and Identification of Solis (ASTM 0'2488) 1 Classifications of solis In this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which Include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, Bnd' plBstlclty estimates and should not be construed to Imply f1eld or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Vlsual·manual andlor laboratory classification ~ methods of ASTM 0-2487 and 0-2489 were used as an Identification guide for the Unified Soli Classification System, g======================================================== f ~ ! Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE A1 ---------------------------------------------------- 1 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-l This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named proiect and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the locafion 01 this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurlace conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, moist, mottled gray and brown, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 5 - Vashon Lodgement Till I Vashon Advance Outwash Transitional Sediments 6 -Dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND, with fine to coarse gravel, few silt; no stratification (SW). 7 - 8 - Very dense, moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel; no 9 -stratification or structure (SM). 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10.5 feet No seepage. No caving, N ~--~2~OT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i '" ;;: " ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~ --------------------------------------~====~--- 2 - 3 - 4 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - • • LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the locafion of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Vashon lodgement Till I Vashon Advance Outwash Transition Sediments Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine gravel (SM); pockets of gray, fine to medium SAND, few silt (SP). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10.5 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i " "! ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ • • . LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3 is This log is part of the report ~repared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named u,roiect and should be £; read together with that repo for comR,ete interpretation. This summary ~plies only to the loca ion of this trench at the "-time of excavatlon. Subsurface condi ions may change at this location wi the passage of time. The data presented are '" 0 a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. . DESCRIPTION Topsoil • 1 - Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 -Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no 5 -stratification or structure (SM). 6 - 7. - 8 - 9 - 10 . 11 -Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No seepage. No caving. 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - N ~--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~------------------------------------------------------------- ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • • • LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-4 ThiS log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurlace conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a slmplficatlon of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 - r----------------------..W~e~a~th"-e~r~ed~V~a~sh"-o~n~L~o~dr.g~e~m~e~n~tTTulll.----------------------- 2 -Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no 3 - 4 - 5 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - stratification or structure (SM). Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, moist, gray, fine to coarse SAND, with siit, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth to.5 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~Or-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i i< '" ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 •• LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-5 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete Interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplflcatlon of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, mottled brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt (SM). 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17- 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10,5 feet No seepage. No caving. ~--~2~Or------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '!i i " '" ~ Ii >- Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, Project No •. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • • LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-6 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togetlier with that repqrt for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurtace conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered, DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 -r----------------------cWUe~aJlh~e~r=e~d'V~a=s~ho=n~Lo=d~g=e=m=e=nJI'T"II'I----------------------- 2 -Medium dense, mOist, mottled brown, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist to wet, mottled gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet Weak seepage zones below 8 feet. No caving. N g--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------ ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0' '1 ~ § Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - • • LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-7 This log Is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togettier with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation, Subsuriace conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplflcatlon of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 14 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine gravel, trace coarse gravel and cobbles, one boulder; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 teet No seepage. No caving. N ~---42~O~------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------~. . g t Cl 1 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-8 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togettier with that repqrt for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the locaflon of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficatlon of actual condItions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, very moist, reddish brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few fine to coarse gravel; 3 - 4 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - no stratification or structure (SM). . Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with siit, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~---2~Or-----------------------~--------------------------------------- ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i 0: C! ~ ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, Project No, KE120359A 9/6/12 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - 2 - 3 - • • LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-9 This log Is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, mottled brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt; no stratification or structure (SM). 4 ~--------------------------~Vca~sh~o~n~Lo~dT.g~e=m~e=n~t~T"'iI'I-------------------------- Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles and boulders; no stratification or structure (SM). 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 9 feet No seepage. No caving. N g---2~Or---------------------------------------------------------------- § Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 5 - 6 - 7 - • • LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-10 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that repqrt for complete Interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplflcation of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, wilh silt, trace fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with siit, few fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 8 ~--------------------------------~----------------------- 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 8 feet No seepage. No caving. ~----20--------------~----------------------------------------------------------------N ___________________________________________________________ __ ~ i 0' "1 ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 916112 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • • LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-11 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth ScIences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togetlier with that repqrt for complete Interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented BrB a sfmplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 - ~---------------------"w~e~a"thCe~r~ed7<.Vcas~hco~n~L'o-dTg-e-m-e-n7t;T~III'---------------------- 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, trace fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to medium SAND, with siit, few fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 8.5 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~Or-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :! i ;> "' ~ ~ Approved by: Logged by: BWG Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 916112 ~----------------------------------------~--- r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, g % Q) o • LOG OF EXPLORATION PI~O. EP-12 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togellier with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 -~---------------------..W~e~a~th~e~r~ed~V~as~h~o~n~L~o~dLg=e=m=e=n7t~Twlll.----------------------- 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, trace fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 17 - 18 - 19 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, moist, mottled brown and gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No seepage. No caving. ~---~~------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 20 ~---------------------------------------------------- 0' <.1 ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 916112 ------------------------------------------------------------- • • WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS w F c I 360/943-1723 FAX 3601943-4128 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C Olympia, WA 98501 -Tree Protection Plan- RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK SE 18th Street Renton, WA Prepared for: Barbara Yarington, Henley USA Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Date: August 27,2014 Introduction RECEIVED AUG 29 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION The project proponent is planning to construct a new 96 lot subdivision on 21.66 acres at SE 18th Street in Renton, W A. The proponent has retained WFCI to: • Evaluate and inventory all trees on the site pursuant to the requirements of the City of Renton Tree Protection Ordinance. • Make recommendations for retention of significant trees, along with required protection and cultural measures. Observations Methodology WFCI has evaluated trees 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger in the proposed project area, and assessed their potential to be incorporated into the new project. The tree evaluation phase used methodology developed by Nelda Matheny and Dr. James Clark in their 1998 publication Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Site Description The site was previously logged many years ago and was not replanted. The trees on the site are all naturally regenerated. Five small wetlands are located on the site. There are no structures located on the site. There are many trails throughout the site. URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY. TREE APPRAISAL • HAZARD TREE ANAL VSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS' VEGETATION MANAGEMENT' ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES' CONTRACT FORESTERS Member of International Society of Arboricufture and Society of American Foreaters I • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan • 8/27/14 Forest Inventory by Forest Cover Type There are two forest cover types for the purpose of description. Both types are natural stands. These stands were inventoried using variable area plots installed on a systematic grid across the site. This sample of the tree population will predict the total population of trees with a 95% level of confidence. The trees within the proposed tree tracts were 100% inventoried and evaluated. The location of the types is illustrated on the aerial photo in Attachment #1. Type I. --Type I is the largest type of the site. The trees in this type are native species. The species found in this type include bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). There may be a small number of other species intermixed. A total of 847 trees are projected to exist in the type, ranging in diameter from 6 to 36 inches DBH. Six hundred and thirty-four (634) of the trees were classified as sound, healthy, long- term trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown class. The other 213 trees are not long-term trees due to structural defects or poor health (dead, diseased, or hazardous). T bl I S a e f 'T ummary 0 Trees III rype I #of DBH Trees in #of Species Range Total # of Poor Healthy Composition Species (in.) Trees/acre Trees Health* Trees of Stand Bigleaf Maple 6-36 48.7 715 172 543 84% Douglas-fir 17 1.6 21 0 21 3% Western Red 14 2.3 34 0 34 4% Cedar Western 14-15 5.2 77 41 36 9% Hemlock Sum 6-36 57.8 847 213 634 100% * Dead, dIseased, or hazardous. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 2 --------------- • • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14 Type II. --This is a conifer dominated type on the site. A total of 458 trees ranging in diameter from 6 to 26 inches at DBH are projected to be in the type. The tree species found in this type include bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western red cedar. Three hundred and seventeen (317) trees were classified as sound, healthy, long-term trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown class. The other 141 trees are not long- term trees due to poor health (dead, diseased, or hazardous). T bl 2 S a e ummaryo fT . T rees In lype II -#0£ Trees in #of Species DBH Total # of Poor Healthy Composition Species Ran2e (in.) Trees/acre Trees Health* Trees of Stand Bigleaf Maple 6-24 29.4 229 _ 12() 109 50% Douglas-fir 14-26 13.5 105 21 84 23% Western Red 18-24 2.9 23 o. 23 5% Cedar Western 10-22 12.9 101 0 101 22% Hemlock Sum 6-26 58.7 458 141 _ 317 100% *' Dead. diseased, or hazardous. Summary of All Trees on the Site There are a total of 1,305 trees on the site that range from 6 to 36 inches DBH. Of these 1,305 trees, there are 354 trees that are dead, dying, or diseased, leaving 951 that are considered to be healthy trees. Bigleaf maple is the predominant tree species making up 72% of the significant trees in the forest. T bl 3 S a e fliT ummaryo a h S' rees on t e lte. #of Species DBHRange Total # of # Of Trees in Healthy Composition of Species (in.) Trees Poor Health * --Trees Stand BigleafMaple 6-36 944 292 652 72% Douglas-fir 14-26 126 21 105 10% Western Red 18-24 57 0 57 4% Cedar Western -. Hemlock 10-22 178 41 137 14% Sum 6-36 1,305 -·354 951 100% Off-Site Impacts Tree removal on this parcel will not impact trees on any surrounding parcels. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 3 • • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14 Discussion Potential for Tree Retention The following table provides a summary of all potential tree tract areas on the site and whether the trees could be saved or removed in the project. There are II tracts (Tracts A, B, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M) that have the potential to have trees retained on them. These are illustrated on the proposed site plan in Attachment #2. A detailed summary of trees by tract, speCies, condition, and DBH class is provided in Table 4 below. Table 4. Summary of tree inventory by Tract (see map in Attachment #2). # Trees DBH # Trees tobe Proposed # Trees-Range Removed for to Be Tract Description of Area Existinl!* (in) Health Issues* Saved* A SE and NW comers Tract A 15 6-24 0 15 B Area surrounding Wetland A 36 6-50 8 28 D Area east of lots 15-33 67 6-28 18 49 F East of Lots 34-35 I 13 0 I G Area surrounding Wetland D 4 14-20 0 4 H Area south oflot 39 40 6-28 3 37 I Area south oflots 37-38 3 8-20 0 3 J Area west oflot 40 8 8-20 0 8 K Area surrounding Wetlands B-C 9 6-18 0 9 L Area south oflot 82 8 8-28 0 8 M Area surrounding Wetland E 19 6-25 0 19 Summary 210 6-50 29 181 *Based on JOO%jield Inventory in tracts. The inventory was done in the field and not from the surveyed map. A total of 29 trees were found in the tracts should be removed because of poor health and/or structural defects. The remaining 181 trees could be retained in the II tracts. As part of the tree protection plan, a re-assessment will occur after staking. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 4 • • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8127/14 Tree Density Calculations Title 4-4-130 of the Renton Municipal Code calls for 30% of all healthy significant trees in buildable areas to be retained on t~e project, or where the required number cannot be retained, replacement trees are to be planted. The following is a summary of the required and planned tree retention as based on the currently proposed plan: Total Project Area Critical Areas and Buffers Rights-of-ways "Buildable Area Total Number of Significant Trees on Site Trees Excluded from Retention Calculation: Trees that are Dead Diseased or Dangerous Trees in Proposed Public Streets Trees in Critical Areas and Buffers Trees on Private Easements Number of Healthy, Significant Trees in Buildable Area: Required Tree Retention: 30% of healthy significant trees in buildable area: Planned Tree Retention Shortfall of Retention under the Minimum Requirement Proposed 6" plus DBH Tree Transplants from within the site: 21.66 acres <1.70 acres> <4.15 acres> 15.81 acres 1,305 trees <354 trees> <238 trees> <72 trees> <15 trees> 626 trees 188 trees <181 trees> 7 trees 7 trees There are 626 healthy significant trees in the buildable area of the site. At least 188 of these trees need to be retained to meet the City of Renton Code. The proposed plan retains 181 trees outside of the critical areas and buffers, a shortfall of 7 trees. In lieu of replacement trees, 7 trees that are at least 6 inches DBH will be transplanted from the buildable area into a tree tract. This will then satisfy the 188 tree requirement. Transplanted trees will need to be mulched and have drip irrigation supplied for at least 3 growing seasons. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 5 • • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8/27/14 Recommendations Tree Protection Measures Trees to be saved must be protected during construction by a six foot high chain link fence (Attachment #7), located at the edge of the critical root zone (CRZ). The CRZ shall be the dripline of the stand of trees, or the limits of construction of the tree tract. Placards shall be placed on the fencing every 50 feet indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees". The individual tree CRZ is the dripline (6 feet minimum), unless otherwise delineated by WFCI. Tree protection fences should be placed around the edge of the critical root zone (CRZ). The fence should be erected after logging but prior to the start of clearing. The fences should be maintained until the start of the landscape installation. There should be no equipment activity (including rototilling) within the critical root zone. No irrigation lines, trenches, or other utilities should be installed within the CRZ. Cuts or fills should impact no more than 20% ofa tree's root system. If topsoil is added to the root zone ofa protected tree, the depth should not exceed 2 inches of a sandy loam or loamy fine sand topsoil and should not cover more than 20% of the root system. If roots are encountered outside the CRZ during construction, they should be cut cleanly with a saw and covered immediately with moist soil. Noxious vegetation within the critical root zone should be removed by hand. If a proposed save tree must be impacted by grading or fills, then the tree should be re-evaluated by WFCI to determine if the tree can be saved with mitigating measures, or if the tree should be removed. If at the time of clearing, the overall tree count fluctuates, the number of transplanted trees will be adjusted accordingly. Pruning and Thinning All individual trees to be saved near or within developed areas should have their crowns raised to provide a minimum of 8 feet of ground clearance over sidewalks and landscape areas, 15 feet over parking lots or streets, and at least 10 feet of building clearance. All pruning should be done according to the ANSI A300 standards for Eroper pruning, and be completed by an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist , or be supervised by a Certified Arborist®. Hazard Tree Inspection WFCI should be contacted to inspect all save trees after initial clearing to mark any additional trees for removal that are deemed to be high risk trees to targets within and outside of the save tree areas. A second inspection of the save trees should occur after the completion of grading to determine if any trees were damaged during grading activity. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 6 • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan • 8/27/14 Conclusions and Timeline for Activity I. 181 trees are proposed to be retained in tree tracts within the site (outside of critical areas and their buffers) and 7 existing 6 inch plus DBH trees are proposed for transplanting. This satisfies the 188 tree minimum retention (30%) requirement. 2. The final, approved tree protection plan map should be included in the construction drawings for bid and construction of the project and should be labeled as such. 3. Stake and heavily flag the clearing limits. 4. Contact WFCI to attend pre-job conference and discuss tree protection issues with contractors. WFCI can verify all trees to be saved and/or removed are adequately marked for retention. 5. Complete logging. Complete necessary hazard tree removals and invasive plant removals from the tree protection areas. No equipment should enter the tree protection areas during logging. 6. Re-inventory the tree tracts for final save tree counts. 7. Install tree protection fences along the 'limits of construction'. The fences should be located at the limits of construction or at the dripline of the save tree or as otherwise specified by WFCI. Maintain fences throughout construction. 8. Complete clearing of the project. 9. Contact WFCI to inspect the tree protection areas after initial clearing. 10. Do not excavate stumps within 10' of trees to be saved. These should be individually evaluated by WFCI to determine the method of removal. II. Complete all necessary pruning on save trees or stand edges to provide at least 8' of ground clearance near sidewalks and trails, and IS' above all driveways or access roads. 12. Complete grading and construction ofthe project. 13. Contact WFCI to final inspect the tree protection areas after grading. 14. All save trees within reach of targets should be inspected annually for 2 years by a qualified professional forester retained by the homeowners association, and bi-annually thereafter. The purpose of these inspections is to identify trees that develop problems due to changing micro-site conditions and to prescribe cultural care or removal. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 7 • • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan 8127/14 Summary The City of Renton Municipal Code calls for 30% of the significant trees be retained on the buildable area of the site or mitigated for. Based on the current site plan, 181 existing trees, plus 7 existing transplanted trees from within the site in II tracts will be retained. This meets the minimum 188 tree (30%) requirement. Therefore, no additional replacement trees are required. This tree protection plan coupled with 72 additional trees in the wetlands and buffers will help to preserve the forested character of the area. As the street trees and landscape trees fill in the buildable area over time, Tiffany Park will be a very well-treed residential community. Please give me a call if you have further questions. Respectfully submitted, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Y!~YJ?V~ Galen M. Wright, ASCA, ACF ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-0129 BU Certified Forester No. 44 attachments: # 1: aerial photo with forest cover types #2: site plan with tree tracts #3: private access roads on site plan #4: individual tree rating key #5: description of tree evaluation methodology #6: glossary ofterrns #7: tree protection fence detail #8: assumptions and limiting conditions Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 8 : • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan • Attachment #1: Aerial Photo of Reserve at Tiffany Park with Forest Cover Types (King County iMAP) ---Site Boundary -• -Forest Cover Type Boundary Washington Forestry Consuitants, In c 8/27/14 NORTH No Scale I Page 9 • The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Tree Protection Plan • Attachment #2: Reserve at Tiffany Park Proposed Tree Retention Areas and Tree Protection Fence Locations Washington Forestry Consultants. Inc 8/27/14 Page 10 The Reserve at Tiffany p! -Tree Protect ion Plan • 8/27114 Attachment #3: Reserve at Tiffany Park Private Easement Areas Washington Forestry Consu ltan ts, fil e Page II ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Reserve at Tiffany pI -Tree Protection Plan • 8/27/14 Attachment #4: Individual Tree Rating Key for Tree Condition RATING SYMBOL DEFINITION Very Good VG • Balanced crown that is characteristic of the species • Normal lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and soil type • Stem sound, normal bark vigor • No root problems • No insect or disease problems • Long-term, attractive tree Good G • Crown lacking symmetry but nearly balanced • Normal lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and soil type • Minor twig dieback O.K. • Stem sound, normal bark vigor • No root problems • No or minor insect or disease problems -insignificant • Long-term tree Fair F • Crown lacking symmetry due to branch loss • Slow lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and soil type • Minor and major twig dieback -starting to decline • Stem partly unsound, slow diameter growth and low bark vigor • Minor root problems • Minor insect or disease problems • Short-term tree 10-30 years RATING SYMBOL DEFINITION Poor P • Major branch loss -unsymmetrical crown • Greatly reduced growth • Several structurally import dead or branch scaffold branches • Stem has bark loss and significant decay with poor bark vigor • Root damage • Insect or disease problems -remedy required • Short-term tree 1-10 years Very Poor VP • Lacking adequate live crown for survival and growth • Severe decline • Minor and major twig dieback • Stem unsound, bark sloughing, previous stem or large branch failures, very poor bark vigor • Severe root problems or disease • No or minor insect or disease problems • Mortality expected within the next few years Dead DEAD • Dead Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 12 The Reserve at Tiffany p! -Tree Protection Plan • 8/27/14 Cultural Care Needs: ABBRV. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CC Crown Pruning of dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or defective branches over 112 inch in Cleaning diameter -includes removal of dead tops CT Crown Pruning of branches described in crown cleaning, plus thinning of up to 20% of the Thinning live branches over II, inch diameter. Branch should be 1/3 to II, the diameter of the lateral branch. Thinning should be well distributed throughout crown of tree, and should release healthy, long-term branches. RC Crown Reduction of the crown of a tree by pruning to lateral branches. Generally used to Reduction remove declining branches or to lighten end weight on long branches. CR Crown Pruning of lower branches to remove deadwood or to provide ground or building Raisin!! clearances. RMV Remove Remove tree due to decline or hazardous, conditions that cannot be mitigated by pruning. RS Remove Remove basal sprouts from stem of tree. Sprouts Rep Replace Tree is small-is in decline or dead. Replace with suitable tree species. HT Hazard Tree Tree is hazardous and cannot be mitigated by pruning. Recommendation is to remove tree. None No Work No work necessary at this time. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 13 The Reserve at Tiffany p! -Tree Protection Plan • 8/27/14 Attachment #5: Description of Tree Evaluation Methodology The evaluation of the tree condition on this site included the visual assessment of: I. Live-crown ratio, 2. Lateral and terminal branch growth rates, 3. Presence of dieback in minor and major scaffold branches and twigs, 4. Foliage color, S. Stem soundness and other structural defects, 6. Visual root collar examination, 7. Presence of insect or disease problems. 8. Windfirmness if tree removal will expose this tree to failure. In cases where signs of internal defect or disease were suspected, a core sample was taken to look for stain, decay, and diameter growth rates. Also, root collars were exposed to look for the presence of root disease. In all cases, the overall appearance of the tree was considered relative to its ability to add value to either an individual lot or the entire subdivision. Also, the scale of the tree and its proximity to both proposed and existing houses was considered. Lastly, the potential for incorporation into the project design is evaluated, as well as potential site plan modifications that may allow otherwise removed tree(s) to be both saved and protected in the development. Trees that are preserved in a development must be carefully selected to make sure that they can survive construction impacts, adapt to a new environment, and perform well in the landscape. Healthy, vigorous trees, are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, changes in soils moisture regimes, and soil compaction than are low vigor trees. Structural characteristics are also important in assessing suitability. Trees with significant decay and other structural defects that cannot be treated are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property could occur. Trees that have developed in a forest stand are adapted to the close, dense conditions found in such stands. When surrounding trees are removed during clearing and grading, the remaining trees are exposed to extremes in wind, temperature, solar radiation, which causes sunscald, and other influences. Young, vigorous trees with well-developed crowns are best able to adapt to these changing site conditions. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 14 The Reserve at Tiffany p! -Tree Protection Plan • 8/27/14 Attachment #6: Glossary of Forestry and ArboricuItural Terminology DBH: Diameter at Breast Height (measured 4.5 ft. above the ground line on the high side of the tree). Caliper: In Issaquah -Caliper is referring to diameter measurement at DBH. Live Crown Ratio: Ratio oflive foliage on the stem of the tree. Example: A 100' tall tree with 40 feet of live crown would have'a 40% live crown ratio. Conifers with less than 30% live crown ratio are generally not considered to be long-term trees in forestry. Crown: Portion of a trees stem covered by live foliage. Crown Position: Position of the crown with respect to other trees in the stand. Dominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and from the sides. Codominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and some from the sides. Intermediate Crown Position: Receives little light from above and none from the sides. Trees tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios. Suppressed Crown Position: Receives no light from above and none from the sides. Trees tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 15 The Reserve at Tiffany pI -Tree Protection Plan • Attachment #7: Tree Protection Fence Detail ANCHOR POSlS $H!"'LD' ~ BE MlHlMUN TALl 'f-SAA' FENCE: POSTS ,1-0-----8 FT. MAX. -----i NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees ANQi(Jf POSTS YUST BE lHST AU.£D TO A O[pTH OF NO LESS 1M ..... l/l Of' 'THE TOTAL HDGHT CF POST. 6 ft. Temporary Chain Link Fence THE TR£E PROTECTION F'EHCE SHOULD BE MAJNTAlHto THROUGHOUT nt£ COHSTRUCn~ AHO GRADING, ..... 0 NOT TO BE REWO'v£D UHm FINAL lAHOSCAPING IS IN PROORESS. AT NO rna: SHALl. EOUIAlOH D<T!R INTO TH[ ROOT PROltClTON ZONE (RPl). AU. BRUSH ClfAMJP WllHlN THE RPZ SHOULD BE CCIWPl£'ItD BY HAND TO PR£WiT DJS11JRBAHCE CF HA Tl\'E CROUNO COVERS NO a.ITS CR FU.LS. UTlUTY TREHOUHC. MODrFTCA nONS TO CRAINAct. OR CONCRETE RlSE WAfER SHOULD lWPACT 'tHE RPz. NO WUttS. CA8l.£S. at 01H£R DEVICES SHOUU) BE ArrAQ(El) TO PROTtCltD TREES DURING CCI'ISTRUCnON. If IMPACTS NUST OCCUR WllHlN THE RPz. CONTACT \llFC1 PRIOR m THE OPERA nONS TO DE"ItRWINE THE PROPER PRoa:DURE TO PROTECT THE lREE's HEALTH.' Washington Forestry Consultants. Inc 8/27/14 Page 16 The Reserve at Tiffany p! -Tree Protection Plan • 8/27/14 Attachment #8: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions I) Any legal description provided to the Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership's to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2) It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations, unless otherwise stated. 3) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of infonnation. 4) Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidated the entire report. 6) Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 7) Neither all or any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. --particularly as to value conclusions, identity of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., or any reference to any professional society or to any initialed designation conferred upon Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. as stated in its qualifications. 8) This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., and the fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence neither of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding in to reported. 9) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. 10) Unless expressed otherwise: I) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree or other plant or property in question may not arise in the future. Note: Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove all trees within reach of all targets. Annual inspections by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Forester will reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or fail, or the timing of the failure. It is considered an 'Act a/God' when a tree/ails, unless it is directly felled or pushed over by man's actions. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc Page 17 r TO: SANDY BAILEY 18215 72ND AVE S KENT, WA 98032 • PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2013 The plat name, RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK has been reserved for future use by NOVASTAR DEV INC FOR HENLEY USA. 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 October 17, 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. Deputy Auditor \ RECEIVED NOV 142013 CITY OF RENTON PLANNiNG DIVISION .------------------------------------------------------------- " . • Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No.: NCS-558970-WAI • • COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." First American Title Insurance Company By: ~7f~' President Attest: IJ1 u.[ tl-~ Secretary By: ~"T ~ Countersigned First American Title Insurance Company NOV 1420:1 CITY 0;:: '",;::;,.,",,,,,, •. "h. PLANT\'1NG D/I,:,,, '\ Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page NO.1 To: First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 818 Stewart Street, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98101 (206)728-0400 -(800)526-7544 FAX (206)448-6348 Chantale A. Stiller-Anderson (206)448-6286 cstiller@firstam.com Colliers International 601 Union St., Suite 5300 Seattle, WA 98101 Attn: Arvin Vander Veen FIFTH REPORT SCHEDULE A Terri Nugent (206)615-3041 tnugent@firstam.com File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Your Ref No.: Renton School District 1. Commitment Date: October 16, 2013 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA Extended Owner Policy -2006 Standard Portion Extended Portion Proposed Insured: AMOUNT $ 10,300,000.00 Henley USA llC, a Washington limited liability company $ $ PREMIUM TAX TBD TBD 12,880.00 $ 1,223.60 3,864.00 $ 367.08 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: Renton School District No. 403, a municipal corporation 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: • • EXHIBIT 'A' File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.2 BEGINNING AT A INTERSECTION OF NORTHERLY LINE OF CEDAR RNER PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY WITH EAST LINE OF WEST HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 123.74 FEET MORE OR LESS TO SOUTHERLY LINE OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE NORTH 31 0 18' 16" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY 969.34 FEET TO POINT ON ARC OF CURVE FROM WHICH POINT A RADIUS TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 31 0 18' 16" EAST 1014.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID ARC OF CURVE TO LEFT DISTANCE OF 831.63 FEET MORE OR LESS TO POINT ON NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE 1014.92 FEET MORE OR LESS TO POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING INTERSECTION OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, TIFFANY PARK DIVISION NO.3 WITH NORTHERLY LINE OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF 60 FEET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG CURVE TO RGT RADIUS OF 1014.82 FEET DISTANCE OF 831.63 FEET MORE OR LESS TO SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY AND TERMINUS OF SAID LINE. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING NORTHERLY OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY. PARCEL D: THAT PORTION OF SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBER AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING INTERSECTION OF NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF CEDAR RNER PIPE LINE AND EASTERLY LINE OF WEST HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTHERLY SAID EASTERLY LINE 123.74 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MARGIN OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE; THENCE NORTH 31 0 18' 16" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MARGIN 969.34 FEET TO A POINT TO A POINT ON ARC OF CURVE FROM WHICH POINT A TANGENT TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 31 0 18' 16" EAST 1014.82 FEET AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY 453.45 FEET; First American TItle Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • • File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.3 THENCE SOUTH 86° 32' 17" WEST 411.86 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON EAST BOUNDARY OF LOT 6 BLOCK 3, TIFFANY PARK DMSION NO.2; THENCE ALONG BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 3 SOUTH 38° 11' 27" WEST 55.36 FEET; THENCE ALONG BLOCK 3, SOUTH 60° 01' 54" WEST 222.76 FEET; THENCE ALONG BLOCK 3, SOUTH 30° 52' 58" WEST 130.13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79° 25' 15" EAST 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10°34'45" WEST 50 FEET; • THENCE SOUTH 22° 05' 56" EAST 785.69 FEET MORE OR LESS TO TAP ON NORTHERLY OF RIGHT OF WAY OF MARGIN OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE; THENCE SOUTH 78° 56' 52" EAST ALONG SAID PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY 60 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1014.82 FEET A DISTANCE OF 831.63 FEET MORE OR LESS TO TAP ON SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7809150816. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • • SCHEDULE B -SECTION 1 REOUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied-with: File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.4 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters; if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS • File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.5 1. This item has been intentionally deleted. 2. Liability, if any, for pro-rata portion of Real Property taxes which are carried on the King County Tax Rolls, as tax account no. 212305-9044-02, are exempt. We note Special Charges for the year 2013 in the amount of $8.32, of which $8.32 has been paid. Balance due: $0.00. (Affects Parcel No. A) 3. Liability, if any, for pro-rata portion of Real Property taxes which are carried on the King County Tax Rolls, as tax account no. 212305-9051-02, are exempt. We note Special Charges for the year 2013 in the amount of $6.82, of which $6.82 has been paid. Balance due: $0.00. (Affects Parcel No. B) 4. Liability, if any, for pro-rata portion of Real Property taxes which are carried on the King County Tax Rolls, as tax account no. 212305-9054-09, are exempt. We note Special Charges for the year 2013 in the amount of $6.82, of which $6.82 has been paid. Balance due: $0.00. (Affects Parcel No. C) 5. Liability, if any, for pro-rata portion of Real Property taxes which are carried on the King County Tax Rolls, as tax account no. 212305-9061-00, are exempt. We note Special Charges for the year 2013 in the amount of $8.62, of which $8.62 has been paid. Balance due: $0.00. (Affects Parcel No. D) First American Title Insurance Company ----------------------------- ------------------- Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • • 6. Reservations and exceptions, including the terms and conditions thereof: Reserving: Minerals Reserved By: Northern Pacific Railway Company Recorded: December 23, 1957 Recording Information: Book 3745, Page 294 No search has been done as to the current ownership of said mineral rights. (Affects Parcels A, B and D) 7. This item has been intentionally deleted. File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.6 8. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Drainage Release" recorded July 11, 1962 as Recording No. 5451046 of Official Records. (Affects Parcel D) 9. This item has been intentionally deleted. 10. This item has been intentionally deleted. 11. This item has been intentionally deleted. 12. This item has been intentionally deleted. 13. Evidence of the authority of the individual(s) to execute the forthcoming document for Henley U5A LLC, a Washington limited liability company, copies of the current operating agreement should be submitted prior to closing. 14. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 15. This item has been intentionally deleted. 16. Matters of extended owner/purchaser coverage which are dependent upon an inspection and an ALTA survey of the property for determination of insurability. Please submit a copy of the ALTA Survey at your earliest convenience for review. Our inspection will be held pending our review of the ALTA Survey and the result of said inspection will be furnished by supplemental report. 17. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that may exist or arise by reason of the following matters disclosed by an ALTA/ACSM survey made by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. on July 2, 2013, designated Job Number 16055: (A) Fence meanders over the north and west boundary lines on and off the subject property; ownership unknown; (B) Footpath is noted onto the subject property over the northeast and First American Title Insurance Company ,------ Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • • File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.7 west boundary lines; (e) Log guard rail is onto the southeast corner of the subject property; (D) Fence is onto the southeast corner of the subject property; (E) Edge of lawn is over the west boundary line onto the subject property; (F) Keystone retaining wall is over the west boundary line onto the subject property; (G) Edge of landscaping is over the north and east boundary lines onto the subject property; (H) Shed is over the west boundary line onto the subject property; ownership unknown; (I) Edge of gravel and asphalt are over the west boundary line onto the subject property; (J) Water meter and sanitary sewer are onto the west side of the subject property without benefit of easement. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • INFORMATIONAL NOTES • File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.8 A. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. B. Any sketch attached hereto is done 50 as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. C. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. ptn Sec 21 Twp 23 N Rge 5E, SE Qtr. APN: 212305-9044-02 APN: 212305-9051-02 APN: 212305-9054-09 APN: 212305-9061-00 D. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment • • First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-558970-WAl Page No.9 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires. actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, .but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclUSion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) COmmitment • • The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Infonnation File No.: NCS-558970-WAI Page No. 10 In Dreier to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal Information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The FirSt American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govem the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. Rrst American has also adopted broader guidelines that govem our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utillzing, the types of non public personal Information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and' • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate bUSiness purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any intemal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of non public personal information Ilsted above to one or more of Our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above, to companies that petform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of Our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated rompanies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. COnfidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpubtlc personal Information about you to those Individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. c 2001 The First American COrporation ~ All Rights Reserved First American Title Insurance Company \:. . -. .. r - -.• :,,-, _t.o- ___ _.'!:m:.!l'-'p~,...].!!lile __ the. -:in-~h. 788'1 qf oU,. Lo,..' ",.e thoueand-'ninEi hUDCli'e'd . liOR~lIERN PACIPIC P.AIL ·il~i. • oJ ,:- PiC/Y, 8 C02'poratlon '!!1'lIntor, to NOP-PiER: -,:,:.:,'1' !tA~I.;"iAY POIlliDATli)N;'~a 01' 'the State ,,1' ;{~=czot". havi"'lS its 'principal p1Bce of ss in st. P8ul lil the County of h-.or r,nd state of :;rinne 90~1I !!1'sntea, ~·~lfESSE.l"":' .J. ~he ~B.ntofi does here~'1-agnate, convey and qultclairR to 't1w sr::..lttlt.' l.:-_t: ·-£cllowing describeg ill"emiees situated 1n tho County c£ Ai~ nnJ ~tf.t..:; aI ,o,e 6!rl.ll8tcn~. to-:-\tit: ---. 'j' '(]t'lov~r,~ ... ~nt LotS.)·~C?~1rT (4») _:hno . ~iX1JC}, ... t::ae ::.~utn;·,:st. :c.:J.:.!.rt~;:-~-t ~ • .:. or lS.e.S~ ,,'\lllrte!" l.S:'i"-;f::i;i., \I 8 .:~C'r1,rI1"lo~LI '-~Ll.tlh .. til· v_ li.;(J" ~v::-y: ... C:-... '>(.u~\rt ... r C ;\t~::;-~'/a-) _ the So~th Hrlf or t'l~ ~;ol"t:rso;:;t .... :~! to, ';" {_:. " ~: v.( sOuthr,e:;t ,-,"uerter (S;;i-) eno the i.Jost ::lnl'::: or Llu SO~~!;..l .... 1 .. t ... _",::,.'t. ~ _ ..... { ,'lSF;~) 'kQf •. S99t.~91!,.'.twenJ!Y=_t;?E~. (2.1), ~·~E.!1~l'..i!\ '':·lc:.~lt:;-:..."~·\ t i_~, ','. ~~~~~lt .,j l'l.ye"( 5)' Za st ;-',.71.-:rrtir;le~"te .:.(.. ~ic"inn. --" ~¢e ... l:" t~~[lt-oerte.in fort:r ('iO~ l':)ot 3;1'i~ ·f la:·.:i c ..... ~·S.; -. ~ :lQ .... t;;L~".,C "'t "uartG:r (Snt) r-n..:-.:c st .~n].r of' the Sout.hen at ~utlrte:r (:._,::--,}) ot· sui.d ~ect..1on '.1'wonty-ona (21j ~".lVI,;/u~ !:.c ..... .:.: ::.. .... _ :..... _~ ___ _ " )t1:11 u:J deed l'To. A-34El3-E ontud :-.o:y lu, 1b9G, l'ccor-dEO :.:t) 2!=r, l~"':: !.~l Vc.':'i.<;r.: ?12, !'?.:;.,.:r j cf ;"'CLC~ on. Foso 10e, ::-t:corC!s of scl-d .:; ... -.. .: .... '.!.:~ o"'';~i-~t alse tnose CO!."ttl~:. i~· •.•• t! (:::0) .:·c~t c.re: .. ',:~·r .. (':j~ "~l"li'S!Jf lO:l1! ncrosp said S01.4,dl'.'.t.!:t ... "t. =-t, ...... (.: f;.J ! •... I' !,~ !.. ~, :"O'.!t:1C::tlSt !u:l!'ter (~'~(St':~L CO!'vr:-yoc to thlt Clty of St.t tt12 :..: : ("'" ~'" te.d :;>C.bp ... l11 r'j ~?, 1~:S9 J ::~r."::' !'c'Jo J:..J.~J 27, 1':;;')3 !.", ·r.:.. ... :.. :' :: • .J c~· ~~cJs :J!l. p .... C't..lo ~'!:7, l":'('"OJ~~S of s3i~. Cou .. ,,::cj"' .. t..l ~ ~' .;t:·tr.:::. ;:31:".t" (-50) .Ccot ~tl·':'.!. 0: 1'11 •• ; "~:!'O.' . \.,.V\.!~::'1 .... (~) J :.!o~r:t"?c -t .... u::rte.~ of ·bhc: .~o!·tl"'~:: tt .~U!·!"t'": (S""", '.:) :, '.1:' 01 ttllJ South"="h~t .. u.:-:~L.l· ( ,_I;.~:,"; c!' 3'!':!.':: :""t..C,~";, ... -.:~ (21~ 0 ... ·J5(.1~"e b:r '':'f~~~ t;i';~ C't Srntth. 1l .. ";t"}cl~e. ,··r:',· .!:' .l.;~._,,: t~ ",,,)Cu..f:,,,:1t '.:,:..; ,~:::el::O :':, ~ . .:-... "'1:.J:'· t..'J.J.:.'t, .. 1..<.... ~; ... ~, :::X!.:.\o .. v: ...... 1:~1.;!: ::'~s..;, .. ~·.rin.~ 1 .. '7.0 1;'.,-:":~';';".~~.~, • ,," • C' ~ !ltH·1i::1.~iJ .",~r-~',T.:OJ ali ui!.~l"l!ls \.;:. '.1 ~;; •• 1·1-:i ...... !·. '.; __ I,. '1"' , t.~lt ~O'ti 1.!r=l'it.vC,-t.o ·I:':·,c,:.. t.:::t, c.:.u:., ........ ~., .l·,t:.:t.··.::.l .~ i' .. ,j ;1.1 ~:!I.;;n c:' ~'Indel'" $Ll~ l:.!.'!.(., .t..}~t.~.t!.! .Lt.t~ t .... ~t'. :.lo.,' ' ;.',' n rJ~ .!t.:. ... h4 lllClr :!.;j !.~~ ,~ •• £ • ." 1 .i .. :t : ",'. i .. ::. ~ ~ ;.:'rcct!::l,;::-lnJ c:-J.r::·~:nr u\'Jl'~ t.i ....... ,{i 1..1(~. \, !', f', " .J"~ .:: ':~S:_ .. 3, :;! . .:.Jl. ,r." ., .... :... :'1, ......... it. mc,~ or c.! ,1 ::l.l:!19, t 10 \·.::t._~"'(_t ','ult:, .• " .. -: 1'" t. . ,.1: _ ' • • ,;'1..t::-•••• lcr;i cr 5u{:L ?Ci·t.1..~"l J" l .. ··r ";.'r'll·C. -."" ',n-:.' j .'.1 ·:> •• :"1'. t;,.J ... !: .J:,'·l·.juZ'pr.; To!.""""!:'", . t: ......... C·";.,1 _ .... ··:. .. l· ·~·hf.: ... !. ... ·~.d.s'!::5 ~1.oVlJ ve S.;o.l·:1,I.:. ... O •• \L C~.~ "~Jl.~; .~~.'l.:..:...!. ':, ~: .• ... • J;"' .••• ! :·o;l'~J .... !.l" ":::.l.C! nlc.,,·ol. HJJ1',l·t:'~t.hu: t':'''9_:~} ..... :.l.·l.,!" .J" " 'ubJcJot t;,) 'C~c i'ollo"Ji:lg ¢:.12t.i .. tt·1lt.~: : -. , 1 •. :-A:lC!;!ut!t. .it.t:o '!c. '-?'';::, c.i.t I" ;; 11 .. 2"', ~(" ! ... ~ ::: I" t .... I .... i ... ,l'vVt.: U."lt_t.:.! 1: (.I':} ~o t:i\~. lu~ct ~ou~c.! .n\II..'.' Llt,"t. t~c:n:.~.:7, ~,-1I. 1'\., •. I', 0:: 1:\;](_ 1"1 :':lU ·':o!'tn'\:l~ .• t "UQ:r·tcl "r l.Lu .;·J..:·tL,,::1. ." I l·t,:· t. .: : ' .. ,..c-cul:m T'IU"ltY-Ol1t! (?1). p,~.!tct'!lunt r~:co~dtJd (I~t.phl:" !;", 1".1 '; l .d' :O:lJ'.:.J~ of lJe=ds on j'/II'4~ (U6. l"U"Cl'de Qr 9t·ld ;\ht.ltY. \ .. NOV 142013 \ ... . "" _ . .cUYOI' ~'~!lr!':. '111 PLANN:i'iG OJ\''1:3!(,I, • < • • : ., j ~iii~~~-~-~------==---~-- ....... ~ -. --.. -~ . --...... -·~r·""" 4., EaSGll).erlt Dapd No. !r-7.Q._,d.Bteg July IB, 194<' from sold ::ortn~o"t" .. n Improvc!'Ient (lO!JI~~:t. .. to_,:!il!!', 1lof''tP81i\ _:p.lanLCorporat~on, (>Q"":oing ro.U't="" (1<1) foot strIp of' land 1il'Govorlllllont' 'Lot S1x (6) Bnd in the \'/ast !lal!' of the N.,rt''''&llt .. \tuartar (lV}NWt) of said~'Silot1on 'l'"Gnty-one (21). Eascmo"t t'eccr':~o ',fovemb"r 27, 1944 in Vo UIIIa 2287 •. Book D of Doed s on Page 4;;7. racoro S ot'" said County,' <>. :>Gsement ))eed !To; -11';916 dated January 23. 1957, ~'r<"l setu ':crM,- we stern I~Jprovet:lent 'COll1pany to th" l'a,,~rlc ;;orthl'l" 91; PIp .. Line Co-rport t:!.on, cove1'1ng natural gas pip" Una in tJu,.../sOuthwest ,<UDl'tOl' 0:: tile So:.:thwest .. u..rter (S'.vtSl'It) cf-add Section Tw\l'f:aty-on .. (2i). Esse::lcn.,t rocor:Jod i.,->,,12 4.:, 195~ in V.plume 3666 ot Deene on Pago ·42, rttcol'os of s;-ld GOl.::tty. ___ . ..t"-___ • w _. ___ ~_:'::;-"': • - ·-'J.1Q ::.AVE _~n) ''p_O HOLD/ all and singular the abovo-£rnntod .r'rt.:I~:!.~. $, t~ roJ~~~;""'it.h t!~~,_a.p.p·u'r-t.f'ln~noes;.:..u.nt~:. t~~ c;:oe.ntce, "'.t:::; ZUi:Ce,SSvl"'f., itJ:J r:.E;:1~-l3 forever, I: ·,'!IT:rZS:3. ri_iR.""20F, t-!le G:rantor bna oous~d thenc .?~GE.:el".r3 tel "lith its cor;:.:crntc se::.l, e:nd signed by 1t3, _____ Pr~51':Je!it, ~:b;: 'j6hl' fil'st f.! "ovr.! written. ( -", _ :::''::. c-. Dl::livr::-ed of ~3. l ~ ,~ .. /_' t.. ' , . i". '\":. O;~ttLls .tDAdry ~r,/)'c:' ,~ "ln57, .~O~(, -if! .. (1~(J"1l1J~ ~~-t-llt)\'r.\\· nl'\RpP'I'!=:, MACFARLANE J"O '~~ I("ot;.l L.; ~" _" -,·"aleT.at c".j A. ... ·Ocdtld\atd -to ::11) ltl"iO·.'l-.. to 1)() the ~\~rr= :". t·~ oC :A ~ cor }CP2.Ciml c:lnt OAccutOGi '~lle ·";i1:.:ir: a!'l.~ !io~·~I~.,)l::. l·;:~trl1l_=1t, .. n.~ ~Cl.::~( - If)r:~:(~.:: 'Jf:lc !.!lstl~ur::.c~t ~o t~t~ the 1"::roe : '-:d ':cl-i.l..,t.~.·J t.e-I" '11. -~cc ot tor t': eo:-"t)l,.n~u:tlon, J. or :icc .:.1'508 U.H~ .. ~.t!"yOBOS tho:.'uiu J';U:llt.io.!.u5, i L~. o:i oat.l ~\' ~ :~:..' l~·lU!. ('-f'I~., ~ .. a-.q~~ :::-u1.h:Jr!zcd to ~xecutc ~·.lu " S:':'Y·l"I .. nt cr".d 1..-1., T .. e !;.<.: . ::-!·l>".H~ Is t.~c;. -o;:r:"'.Jornte SI!It.l of said COIl ~uJ·ntlun • • _Il-: ~~ .". '~~Or\ ' h~vo ·i~··(Ullt.O ~(~ •. ") LnrlU tUl.. l. 3Lf_.l ~lh': "iny lIn.,} j-crnO lust ohove ··Il'lttto!l. ... n. '--1--. ' -~ ":J5 /l1.d I.e ~ .... d-.~-, !Jj~ Roq ••• T .1 '{) J. • • 26mr "-M • CocmIy AudII", >-'-' :::l." -, "-':: ~ ., "'--_-Jl E--: CI"_") p:J, ~ '. • • THIS GRANT. laado at __ ...... 1" ... ltt.r..~1 ..... ____________ • !"aohington cn the _ ... 6t .. h .... __ daY of _____ .IIJIIIV..,1yIt-____ , 19112., by ar" bei;ween __ ~Hum~e~!~i~rq~e~d~.~c~".L_ _________ ~and Tpn"A M Boeder "'·U'--".,=-,:-:-== _ ~ I':y OF RCNTc.N HUSBAND AND ~.rIFE, HERUNAFTEll CALL.~;D THE FIRST rARTIES, Anu 1Il<IlIS<lOCUlIll¥:l' a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. REREINAFTER CALLED THE SECOND 'ARTY, and '.1HErtEAS, first parties repl'osent nnd warrant !;hat thEiY are' the owners (tonant, mortgagee) of that o~rta1n parcel of land described as follows: --'- That port10n of the west hait and ot the west half of the east half ~?, of section 21, tolirn~·.l1p 2:'\ north, range 5 east, W.M., 1n Klng County, ~~. Wash1ngton, ly1ngsoutherly and easterly of the Bonnev1l1e Power Adm1nlstrat1on r1ght of way as descr1bed 1n 1nstrument recorded under auditor's flle No. 5060024, and northerly of the Seattle Cedar Rlver Pipeline r1ght of way as conveyed to the City Of :,' Seattle by deeds ·.recorded under auditor's fUe Nos. 148959 and ·c .. '. 178644; EXCEPT that port1on thereot conveyed to Renton School D1str1ct No'. 403" by deed recorded unde:-lOue!ltor's fUe No. :ilBGi85 descr1bed as follows: . That portlon of the west half of the southeast quarter of sectIon 21, townsnlp 23 north, range 5 east, \~,14., ln K1ng County, Wash1ngton, descrl.bed by metes and bouuds as follows: Beginn1ng at the pOint of intersection of the northerly right of way line Of the C1ty of Seattle Cedar River P1pe11ne as conveyed to the C1ty of: Sea~tle by deed recorded in Klng County, under auditor's r11e No.' 178644, with the east 11ne or the west half of southeast . ql."'Y'ter of said sect10n 21; thence northerly along said east line 123.74 feet, more or less, to a pOint on the soutberly right of way I1ne of the Clty of Seattle Mercer Island plpe 11ne as condemned 1n King Coun'ty Superior Court Cause No. 486190, under Ordinance No. 84393; thence north 31°18'16" west along the sald southerly rlght of way Hne 969.34 feet to a polnt on tne arc of a curve from whlch po1nt a'radius ! to sald curve bears south 31°18'16" "ast 10..14.82 feeot; thence south-I wasteY'ly along the arc of sale! curve to the left an arc d1stance of ' 831.63 feet, more or less, to a polnt on the northerly r1ght of way I 11ne of said City Of seattle Cedar R1ver pipe line; thence easterly . along the sald northerly right of way line 1014.92 feet, more or less, 'r~CrQ~l~OMti~tRg'd~le~~~o~~~~ gg~~t.gg rg~r~~~gcg~~~e~~grN8it~3of_ !leaet!e ercer I" anit ptpel1ne-1n King county superior court cauael'O.~~. EXCEPTIONS: i I J J ,--------------------------------.-."-.. -"~----~--,-~---.. ,-.-.. ~-.. -~-~--~~"--~·:·~,p:·:~~-\~w:).;q,:=:-:"~""~~~~;~,:~~.W4;;.;,*%;;'~.;r:';;:.~,:,;..~,:.;::.;.,~,=_.~,;,~---------- VOl. 4296 flI!:f550 • • IT IS HDlVALLr Aal'!&:aD AS ,.)U,CIiII: that the add l"11'.t P ... t1u hereby cons3nt to tho natlU'al 1'1 .... ..r ..... t ..... vall.r 1'rOlll oaid p~.t to be ourl"" in it~~}glSl channel a~roe. ~. prOperty or the Plrat Parti •• and to hal! ~ L blamels.s t6p snr4amago that may be cauo.d by a~id ~.ra1na8" tlow. abd this cQltv.ya ..... '··.mall be a covenant r<mnins v1 th the lane: and shall be blnulng upon 1.11 parties ~nd ~holr heirs ~nd 8SaignS forever. . II< '1ITNESS t1HEREOF th9 "art! eo he ·"to and soal" at the day end yaar l'i:-ot a !"!ITNESS: -i4I1.t,1h7!fa [tl1m .,c.? ,<': ATTEST: ROlJER'!: A. ;·,ORRIS C:;'",-k of the Board . By:. ____ -.,,==:-,-___ _ Deputy havtO hereunto sot their hanu uritten ..-.._ . . /,. ,. 1 j I J i l I ! N W+E S • • First American Title Company i ·1 I Reference No.: 558970 County: King ~ _.:," ! ",~. ,,:::;; " I " I , I , • -', '. -_.".,'-',-1::-;Y-~ -; ~j..J1,i1[ ' .. :' t .-'" ! II' 1'1: I ~--;: \,,/. " .. ';:Y'\ :V-_l,., ~_~_:p'j-'_'l: \.;. i ! , :~r~W:-~;~!~(~,~~>i' Ii \ I"II ' "'j/] .... ,/. A , , ' I : ::~t; \~-:'Ti:'0~:::<~: : : ,J. -7-H "I /~ : . 'I, "1· i~ .,'<..,".r-+r,~ ,,7 . t~~L~.!:>""i..;,(, >.~ t, .. '.----,~~t (-"~." " ....... :~:;/., > / .;: j (T.~!":~-;r:-· _",t·~-. "~', ,," +~~ ~~4~~~ i '(l-'l\'!'~ ,..~ #s :£ I F:,-·J··;r.;,r~·.("'·',,:,~--> -~-;:-'p> r. ,'-<; >\ .-"i{~~ ij '\{~~ffb,~2~~;_iiLT,4/i' ,~ji~~~i~~~l} It '-l"·~k\f'" -7 ~ ; 1 : tJ ,--:,---:: ' .... /)' '.'./' \,~/ /~"~'I'''''''''''''''''l .,---r' , ____ <._~:.L~ 1-....., ..[~""!> .... ~:: __ "-./. '-"--"-"-·~·_'_/G~'.J'-" ,'-~'>//A, '\ ~:f'/~·"""-).,:o·:-f.1 I I 1'·,_. ,~'~-:H ,II !,' .: "-. 'Y ,j ". _,c~,', I I I. I J,.oy r c/ 'r -';;/' '" / '. '~'" ¥, 1.-1-! -'1-1-:" -,I '~}:I 1 ~', /'<'-------L ' ---. -., ~ -. -", /, ,", ...---~ ,/~, L~ -'Ie... , _, • I r ,'.' 1 -( {, ~~, f._ • ---L·j~;t-·J __ ·:l-..:.., __ +---,-_l"±_._ >-'" ~ ,,"--,-~.... --,..;." \:.J. ~I::J_ ~L ,-~.nl-., ',-:_ ;~~JrUl,gJ~~til[fi'i~~t~tE~~~?1~~1~fr1,~ Tax 10: 212305-9044-02,212305-9051-02,212305-9054-09 & 212305-9061-00 Short Legal: A Portion of Section 21 T23N R5E Map Not To Scale Location Map Legend DPARCELA DPARCELB DPARCELC DPARCELD This map mayor may not be a survey afthe land depicted hereon. You should not rely upon It for any purpose other than orientation to the general location of the parcel or parcels depicted. First American Title expressly disclaims any liability for aUeged loss or damage whidl may result from reliance upon this map. /10 ... t R'I .,." t C' .. ", ~ -y- N W+E S • • First American Title Company Tax 10: 212305-9044-02,212305-9051-02,212305-9054-09 & 212305-9061-00 Short Legal: A Portion of Section 21 T23N R5E Reference No.: 558970 County: Ki ng f . Map Not To Scale Location Map Legend DPARCELA DPARCELB DPARCELC DPARCELD This map mayor may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. You should not rely upon It for any purpose other than orientation to the general location of the parcel or parcels depicted. First American TiUe expressly disdaims any liability for alleged loss or damage which may result from reliance upon this map. ", " \,1 '" , , '" (""l I" 1-.. ' " O§ • PI .. , .. KltlmlliU, IliiUl"; t:=;!!1 ............ UH.". 110 .. _ UI'I'&'U" 10 ... t!..'...J.-___ -2iL.'LL ~;' ,r 1.1{.-, •• ..-.0_ .~.,Ll.. . .L,J:.::..:' ... :.L:_ . ....I "), -! I' \ _ .. __ ~~.~-_.:~:.:.:..i:L.._i..'1 lil L'k, II C 1:1. ll0 ,I, ;>1, I"~ ? Ill", /~ i i..,. pr.(!(.!r-~·-: t~ r', r :.;. t'l:l~ C·,:oJ' ~: I • S!atulory Wananly Deed • 'I I Ill-. I,ll \'.;'1 OR LOU}6 T. !t!lEPFf".1S and LvnTl, I!. 5HGrrHL!:i, hiD wt.tc III hlfllly;uJ , .. :m'o'rYl Jon.1 ... IUUII" 10 "!lC~TOH SCHOOl. 'llTS'1'RlCT UO. ~OJ, l\ I!tUf\lt:~~J~ corporlltlon, . II ... If)\l~IIl' ,\rs(I~h.,d tul..,:alt', s.i.1U&trd m I~ UNAtJ \,I' Klnq .5e.a&.r:.01 ... . .... _- \ll/d l'UHI10N (II litE ~OLJTltLl\~,T OUt.RTEil AtiO HiE SOUll1;,J[!ll 'Ju~IlTl':H ()f' ~,~-rlJ(n ~l TO,;,'SH)f' ..... 3 r.o;.nt1, r..\t)Cr. ':> r.A:~l, 04 ... ·' •• itl ~:lFlG C(HI'~ 1\ CO'\"~'I," : I) ". ltl~ t'OPH 0,' I/;i:':H'icrJ IC,t; OJ" p,r ~:uaTtI~I:tY rn(,Lll-0f-:iAY 1.111:-or j,.r (11\ C~ 5-.~/ .. rTLI_ (!:.Hf.Il ;ll\I~.!~ ;)lPU,I;~~. \JITIi nu·: i.:.~r 1..1',' \Jt ;tl~ 'f,~!,l h.\.F oj 't~~ !":.!J'J-;,'~'I\~.r ~lll:';'i;," eF :.'::CT 1 0'.' III !tll~;l ... i" ',~";'I'J~liL' (.LD'''C :'':'If) '::.~,i 1 )",-It'1./4 f!:;:lt :\fl.~':: DR L!.(.~ 1:,: /l ~~I\T 01. i'\1; ~)t,\Jl:·~lil.'I' "ILIl,-: . .r-·,,'t\) Lfl:~: Of p .. ~ tli)' or f.~l."lll· ',·:.f<C·'-~ l~L,\t.D ;~II--'~l.lhl.:, 1I1!:';(~ I.O'~li1 ')1('1:.''16'' \1~.':." t..trl;,l, /1':' '.1 (r; ~(lt1TI1:"IiL) HI(;!1"7-0r .... t.' Li"~: ';t.'1.)4 t-r::t::T 13 A PO)111 01, lt1'; :.lle aj: i .. UJiWL", f-~W:·: ,.III(tl \'()Ii·~'l /I. r!.A;>ll!~, 'TO !.IAI:"> t_lHl\T IJ'~/,',~ .... ::.mJ1H Jl c'ld 1 1t" ~A~l 1(;1:,.22 ft:ll, h~ .. n~:!.c:n~=-i) II, t;!',ll> l\1 :;.r;-~101~ S(Il:)lIl. tll:..lI·ICi 80. (.01, H~(O"':,~:') u:~;)~!~ >.U:)liOR'S 1"1t.:' ;;0. ~,lrnH~f..l A'.~ 1"oMI(h ,::. lHf lfi~: I~O)Nl Of i!!:(tlr~.:i: ... G 0,- TI1)~; tH ~rl·'I;-·j !(L~l TH!:t~CI ';VlJI-l~·::'ST j,I.U,:f, lliE ~lt.l:') .~_Oll\!I::~n \" ;'!!·ft.li~f: r'lc.,:~I-Of'-·,''',y (,'oJ.I ,;, rr~'II 1,/:11[:: !:.l.lUltt tH,\J.~::ll·I" , • .:=!,r .. ll.iH. ,[:.1 •. \~~it::' ol~ lor!.! .. ~0 I. ;;~I··lI' Cl~~ Itt: i'f.~1 L'~y~!,"'\rp' Oi LUi (., ~:F i\L0Cr: 3 0,' ilL ;'L/,T 0;: Tift ,\;n j',\~I{. ul\'~",I~H~ ;>. /.((0;:)11$, 10 HiE 1'l./.r II(CCT,)~~l )'1 \,Cl.uv.~: '~'? ~)f I'L/t':" O->I.b[ ;.(.~)b, II. l~lr.C. (OU:-,,:T't', \IJ,:,ttll-.hl!.~\!1 It1t_',C::' I,LU\G iff:. !~';.lU$II~" !.i :-.:dLJ !J!..oC(. J, ~:)'.J.t-' :In''li'7;'' .. ::::~T ~:'.3:' ;-r..~il lH-\lCI 1.,U·lG :L()(~), !)C;\JPt f;,tIlOl" .• I," ilf:,l ?;';'.7(.,:·1~::' I. if-1: ·,C':.. ~'~~'':f'':; fdor.G .n::.;,: .... ''i, :-.Cuill "O<-·';I.'~·e" hI' ':.' T ) :'.~I. ~ ~~Ir":' ~-l. LI1I""'~r:; i P,} 1 t,C:" f>! ~I·. ~:, .11 ':':I,.·~ .l. ~~I!J'"1 1C" :';1,1 ... ::'(1 ':1:'\ "~'(!(;"7\r:-l' :t,,,:,,(~' ':10-...11'\ lO:;°2~_·)·.J" i'J.:.r :"o .. ao ;::-.:':-11 Ttf!'!<rE :,Ulljll /illlt"'I"t,"" 11,~.1 nLull'f r~E.i, "{J'::, (Iii :..{~,~.( te II POJUl WI .,,: f;(I'~tH!..~'L) ·IJ:'lt,-or-.·:I,~ '.'~.~ UI lUI (11\ ';> !)~;\11L~IS (["H"', Hl\'~'lll'l ~lr'~'l.lr.:. ;'tl:\l~ ~lOlJil: ·1t!u;~I'.,~" ;-(.~.t, :'L~lf\G ~:..r0 I-U.It.I': ,q~I'II'·:.'--""'1 :, ld ,ll'.(i ~li tC,C'. ... ~,1 iD f, 1''J.l.'d ,.tll(" I~, -,1'1,' ~,ll.J;~'.,~;"''-·1 (,I,,',' :.'~ ~) .. 11';' :'~ n·~:.c,li~:,~; U\iJi..::,· :,:JPlltl',", f!t:: ",,1. ~lu' ... I ... ,t I:!,_:,(:' :"Jljl':,.;:. 'fL) r,t.;:r. 1'~:: t:nu',';),\., ',ll ·.Jd~J 1'/,·~;:'l.' '''1:1:,:: !):jl:.<)I ..... ": •. > ,. c~: .. · 10 lI'e: ;:I(il,j ~'I I,' I. ,,'J.'Jltlr. 'JI j:;1'. :.' j :.~ 1 ;111'. t, rq·~1:.1 ~l: .. ~:!,~,] I !:.~. __ 11 I~O;(~ ,.,1' l-~.'" t'.1 i, .. ':iP.l \',"It:H J~, :'1: Pc. ~_(:"1': :,~ ~ d:l!'j-O"'-li h Y Llf,!: (_,I I":: r\l\ (If" r,!A'ilL:'~ ''',~.:'''.(I'J 1~.I.II·,fl ,'I·'lllr.: :.fl) 1t'~ 1.'1,1 I'~)!.;I (,,.' .;:.~.: ."1',1, }'t~,'1 .Mil/lt.II.II,I},.I)""II) !,/".i. i:?·}.·/·IU IJdyt:~: I of ., 1'1 ,·,'IW/I.'III f7. I .'I,',-'f sUUJ~C'r 1~: • • ,,,' ... " ....... -:.. .. ,_ .. _ .. -"._., ra!OIlRft or damaqeQ dU:..Itd J~Ull.lo.ry l.~, 1962 re(..'"Ordod under Auut.tor'. f'iIQ H4,). 5376166: And ~ J'~hutQtiI of da.aage. dltteul. .Tuly 6, lq62 Taoox-c1ed undlJr Auditor'" Plle lIo. 1j4S104£ .. 'HAlF. (II' \\'A~lIiN(;Tt.lN. I \" cd l~f."1! nw I..flUlS ,.. SH.l!PP!:t..q ,,-no t.,!Ul~ 1':. fllifiPF't:L.,<.i • • ~yKlIlftI the 1lrit.h1u lind ,~ hastf1l1Mnl, &ftd to: y lut alltt vofllhtaf)' Kt aad da:d, lor-thr Ibyof .January, 1913. nJlly,WA L)')'::lJmtml·-)'._·dr.Ml)lI'h.V~~y.lh),_;II) 11);:1 12.J.,J4H "age: I-J (,:',mm,-'Ilt . . . I I I I ! \ .• t\ Statutory Warranty Deed ,(:,),,"()""'I t'(IHM t G .... . - ." , ..... J ~.., Jill I;I\\"'I~'I: rA11~1II.n1 lND Sl!flfli;[ i,"VI~'n'Jrl:l~. ,!J£., .. w.tf!htn,::too Co:r,:aratioa. \\ ,I-hu\I(I"U 'III:I! 1.:,:-1 !Ull ,,'-I'll'" ... eat l\.IIlf "t" Ihe-.,)t,1.: . .,:.;:l.1 'Illurt'!l-,)\ !lel,;f\ul1 "iI, l.uw:,:,jI.ll' ~J ;"tr~ll, 1"!t1\&ro :', .... t:'. 'ol.!'4 •• r(!.I'I!. (:O-Ullt_y. Waahtn.r;t"". ,tescr\hrJ hy ~t.-ell al\\l l:"UOI1IO IU' f'Jllj)"'~: ~1'_'&lHHII~ at lit,· poInt :"It tntr.r.e(" !Oll .)\ tilt· '1<)I,t'h.cly rlgh1' 'J~ I ..... y ]\ne Hf lhe CII,! ,,:1 St,_ ... :.1 I.~ Cao~r klvcr Plpt:ltl\e ft. cun ... ~y~'" 1,1 ! I~e elr.y 1)1" Seo1tl Ir 1,,/ d.,~.t r",:lJT'JtI!d III KII~;' eel' ,\1 y_ .,atdar .ndtt.)l"s fIle Mo .. 17861./" ... il l , :hL' e.,~1 lint" eH 1,11t.' ,",;1.'111. 1:.111 ,,\ ~"':ltll'$.' 'In.r.~r (".f .,.,Id •• ct1un 21J t:hrl<':" 1Io'1"Liu::'"!:'-!OiOilft .. /.l\d 1'!UH U:'f! );:>:1.7:. , 1e($,"1 j 1:'(,.1.. \111,'.1:' la-io:-I'II'J, It> • put,,:... .)j~ ':':. ~I.l\l~i .. :! ~:.' ""!.~hl'. ~Jf \.!II~' 1 :nt: ,,~ t.11 .. C~ t)' ,)1 St...I' ~ l~j \ ",/>.-;; '(",':"-,H.en'r':r l,d:mJ i.JJ>" ~ ••• " ,.ll cond_ll-.e-cl in j(tll~ C"'\Jn:.~ Sur'c.:.-I,;'t r:uur~. "dUSt" Uo. t,MI'ID; . :,::' •.. :,.".)'j 'Hld" .. "1·d11·o.Lill~l: ~l .... tj.!.)<)'\l u.,! .... ;t'; ,,,,,cr!. ',HoH!'16" w .... t .. dullS Lht" IU.t." .">lth~1"l~ l·I!ol. l lt If: ~_ \ 1;1 'Jay 111lt~ ';Ht4 .. j4 ~cel to. p.;1111 un the _n.: "t '" !.:Il"'V~ In'lll ..,\lit:!! 1'"11,,, II ~',I(:LIPI ; .. i.\' .. ,,:~. sAid ;:1I1-'JC b~drd lt~. ~h ·.~l"lh'It)-~".t. l(JFI .. K2 ,IC('~'.l t'u.:net 1"')UlilWc~lt~I-1Y .,1<)118 ~hc IH',~ I -',J,. _.'/ 'I "f Hdt,\ Cla"v,' roo 1.:1~ Jotl art l.In~ ...:t.'tt.L!UCf fir K.!l.h~ h·,-t, lll'lrc l~r lc:tS, \'\1,1 p.).I,: :;:: \' \':".:~:~"! Ih •. ,trl:·Tl.c-dy r1gh! ut \OMy lill.e" lJ; _/ltd Cl,Ly.>f :\~I.'tt,.le Cr~:d~ kt',f/!" rlF~ Ifiu!1 :_11L'm~1:' ,I!:£I!f~',UJl.:",alcll:' "lr)1!p, 'hI'" •• 10 l~"!-t:hf"Tl: :--18hl of "':.Y lln.r l.llt ... :}.! I~, .. f', IflU"", n;-1{'1I.~. to . _ ... --"--' I'hl'" p ... llli of l,"..as1iU11ng. :;"It.l""L .1\';" 1", 1,1i., ;'"a.,] .... "Ll'''' ,1/' I:.:n\·:":dc; III ,k· .. d CnJl:: 1,!I',: ;;('I'~,!p:J'n 1\.l;:l~·l·: ttll,: ..... ; 1;.;ltt:P;11Ij' I,d 1.111: ;:'1·.~"t.lll·. ~-i.:"·.'d ~''''.:~:1:::\)'~1· l;\U:, ".1';" ;",'" ()l !,ol i:. !..tl'~ ,,1'1"!.I:t· u!" l!;,' E1H/.:. ~:');.d~.'" Awllt.nr Of~ rH~;'l"mta'l' ·:~!"'t, 1')'/; JI! 'j(,}:U>I" J{!:':; of i'"·,,,t:,;, P'l!¥" .,(,1 •• '.\"\11,. t)l" \\·A~II~!\';TO:\. \ ""'41,~,.~~.~~.~~ :. '~"i ,bi;. , "~',:kb .• ~"l4'"I'I'ut.h,<."'''1 lu. ,hI" '~ •• 'f" ,,' W .. ..JIIII~",~' .I1llJ" 1960 . /lrj,"r nil:'. lht aJrni" .. 'LI. .It,;, .... ,,""' .... ] .. 11:"11 ... d ........ ,trT'oI,n.olly JI'1 .. ·.£1M1 ,,",1 1:. t.. Sanw!ck Jr. .' . . II~" ParkoJ' I", .p.. k,,!,,:,,,,, I .. ~~ j~ !' ...... i.j,-nl .IJ11' ~J 1f'IJr\', f<',,"" tlllrl}', .. f , '. '.' , _ : ... ,: _ JIlJl.Da t SI.lIWlCK )JiV~1'S. III!. Ihr-r.lVl.:pMi"""" .... "-ill~.1 110., kl~_ 'n~I1",""" .. ,. .. 1 .... \tll·.tr!.Wfil IW 1o.I;J .n~"\UI'"tl '",IuJ';ii-}"'.l1:.;//1t4.'nl .,t "-oi)d ,"" ..... IMW'. :.11 ,)" .j"". ",11': 1""1"'-'" ,! ... ,rm n .. 'lu ....... i. ",,..' .. n '14:1, ',1.,,,-,1 ., .... , 1.1)18)" ~~ :lutJ".!;,:r.\ ". r .... "I' "" _ ... ,,1 II . · .• ,nr:)1 ""ltl th.lI t'lt' ...... ; .dh .. rd h 1M r""j1'< .. ;lt,. ...... , .,~ "" ;-'. ~.. ~ .' ..... -. :::. ... ';::.' --. .. . . . , 'I ',; c , , , , , Statutory Wammty. Deed ((:0''''01-...11: .. 0 .... , SHTF. 0' ~~SHINGTON. ( .... Cuwty ~ King , I"oa. La. OIl lid. _ '12th-,. . dI.r.'oI ,J\. ne. 1963 d. _, ...... ...;, bffcn . .., -:p~ir=' b • Notary'PUbIk in'aDd lor d .. su..lIf,_W ........ ·,.., .... ~""""'~_ -Jack''Pete~on . ,.:_:.1 '·nW:r.H •. Leoriant WInrl:~.t!.w·'dIe ~'~~:" ... "._. ;,', :~",~Iw~)'.~ CA::'oC,1DE CEKT:':R INC. 1M curporai~uhill ~ tht-f~ ~;'~ , • -"', f '· .... akl mit.,...... to ..... frw IDd .u,ufttarY-.. cad"tIeed'CJ,..kf.ru,..,.....r_:thlt·i_ .... ,,~ therfta'lbft'Il~~'" CIB _h t&aled, 't.t th@y are·' ·-':""autJwri:i.d tu-cx.nu.itt.'.raid:-,mciia_l~AN1'lhl:'t1W:"" aliixed .'tbe cGrp.Qlt-.., o('.w l'OI'pfntkill." . " : .. ;,-:,.,: .. " .' -"'-'~" ::,.;;. ,.;,;',-' -. '. - . Wlt.·my hlRd and,oftklill Jlf'ill twreto aftlud ... 'nd)'fW tiM aho\,. .rift"'. : . -. .. .. ".. . -: , " , ", ~, .".,.,... " ,-, , . '·'~i$/(~::.{1:;r;i;';ii;.~i;;'. HIif/IrI, _, Bellevue' • WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. 524 Second Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Matt Hanna Document Title Reference Number of Related Document Grantor Grantee Abbreviated Legal Description Tax Parcel Numbers {02421172.DOC;! I --------- • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Reserve at Tiffany Park N/A Henley USA, LLC Plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park A portion of NE ,;.\ of the SW ,;.\ of Sec. 21 TWP 23 N. Rge 5 E, W.M. City of Renton, King County, Washington 212305-9061, 212305-9051, 212305-9044, and 212305-9054 RECEIVED NOV 142013 - 1 - CITV Or t!E"ITON PlJ\I\tN:1I.JG OlVl,:;IUIIJ • • DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK is made this __ day of ,2013, by Henley USA, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (the "Declarant"), as the owner of certain real property situated in King County, State of Washington, as such property is more specifically described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Real Property"). RECITALS Declarant desires to develop the Plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park ("Reserve at Tiffany Park") as a residential community on the Real Property. Declarant also desires to create common areas and facilities for the benefit of the Reserve at Tiffany Park community and to provide for the preservation of the natural values in Reserve at Tiffany Park. This Declaration establishes a plan for the private ownership of lots and the buildings constructed thereon, for the dedication of certain areas to the public, and for the beneficial ownership through a nonprofit corporation of certain other land and related easements, hereafter defined and referred to as the "Common Areas." The nonprofit corporation shall be delegated and assigned the duties and powers of maintaining and administering the Common Areas, administering and enforcing these covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and collecting and disbursing the assessments and charges hereinafter created. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby covenants, agrees, and declares that all of the Real Property, as defined herein, and the buildings and structures hereafter constructed thereon are, will be, held, sold, and conveyed subject to and burdened by the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements, all of which are for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness of Reserve at Tiffany Park for the benefit of the Owners thereof, their heirs, successors, grantees, and assigns. All provisions of this Declaration shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Real Property or any part thereof, and shall inure to the benefit of the Owners thereof and to the benefit of the Association and are intended to be and shall in all respects be regarded as covenants running with the land. ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS Section 1.1 "Association" shall mean and refer to the Reserve at Tiffany Park Homeowners Association, a Washington nonprofit corporation, its successors and assigns. Section 1.2 "Association Action" shall mean and refer to a written corporate action of the Association in the form of either a bylaw or resolution duly passed by either the Board or the Owners. Section 1.3 "Board" shall mean and refer to the board of directors of the Association. Section 1.4 "Common Areas" shall mean and refer to all easements and Tracts and any improvements thereto that are owned by the Association, for the benefit of the Lot Owners, and subjected to this Declaration by an appropriate recording. As of the date of this Declaration, the Common Areas -2- {02421172.DOC;1 } • • consist of: All Common Areas depicted on the Final Plat, including without limitation, the roads and sidewalks, and recreational areas, all as identified and/or illustrated on the Final Plat, recorded in the real property records of King County. Section 1.5 "Common Expenses" means the costs incurred by the Association to exercise any of the powers provided for in Chapter 64.38 RCW and this Declaration. Section 1.6 "Declarant" shall mean and refer to the entity described on the first page of this Declaration and its respective successors and assigns. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed by the Association or by any third person, to create the relationship of principal and agent, or a partnership, or a joint venture, or any association between or among any of the signatories hereto. Section 1.7 "Declaration" shall mean and refer to this instrument, as the same may be supplemented or amended from time to time. Section 1.8 "Development Period" shall mean and refer to that period of time beginning on the date of this Declaration and ending on the receipt by the Association of written notice from Declarant in which Declarant elects to terminate the Development Period. Section 1.9 "Final Plat" shall mean and refer to the Final Plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park recorded under King County Recording No. ______ _ . Section 1.10 "Governing Documents" shall mean and refer to this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and rules and regulations of the Association as any· of the foregoing may be amended from time to time. Section 1.11 "Lot" shall mean and refer to any legally segmented and alienable portion of the Real Property created through subdivision or any other legal process for dividing land and subjected to this Declaration by an appropriate recording, with the exception of dedicated rights of way and Tracts designated as Common Areas. Section 1.12 "Mortgage" shall mean and refer to any recorded mortgage or deed of trust encumbering one or more of the Lots. "First Mortgage" shall mean and refer to a Mortgage with priority over the other Mortgages. "Mortgagee" shall mean and refer to the holder or beneficiary of any Mortgage and shall not be limited to Institutional Mortgagees. As used herein, the term "Institutional Mortgagee" or "Institutional Holder" shall include banks, trust companies, insurance companies, mortgage companies, mortgage insurance companies, savings and loan associations, trusts, mutual savings banks, credit unions, pension funds, Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, all corporations, and any agency of department of the United States Government or of any state or municipal government. Section 1.13 "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner (whether one or more persons or entities) of a fee interest in any Lot, including the Declarant but excluding Mortgagees or other persons or entities having such interest merely as· security for the performance of any obligation. Purchasers or assignees under recorded real estate contracts shall be deemed Owners as against their respective sellers or assignors. - 3 - {0242) i72.DOC;) J • • Section 1.14 "Real Property" shaH mean and refer to that certain real property which is legaHy described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the terms and conditions hereof by an appropriate recording. Section 1.15 "Reserve Account" shaH have the meaning set forth in Section 3.12 of this Declaration. Section 1.16 "Reserve Component" shaH mean a Common Area for which the cost of maintenance, repair, or replacement is infrequent, significant, and impractical to include in an annual budget. Section 1.17 "Reserve Study Professional" shaH mean an independent person who is suitably qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to prepare a reserve study in accordance with Ch. 64.38 RCW. Section 1.18 "Significant Assets" shaH mean that the current replacement value of the major Reserve Components is seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the gross budget of the Association, excluding the Association's Reserve Account funds. Section 1.19 "Single Family" shaH mean and refer to a single housekeeping unit that includes not more than four (4) adults who are legaHy unrelated. Section 1.20 "Structure" shall include any building, fence, wall, driveway, walkway, patio, garage, storage shed, carport, mailboxes, basketball hoop, play equipment, climbing apparatus, swimming pool, rockery, dog run or the like. Section 1.21 "Tract" shaH mean and refer to any legally segmented and alienable portion of the Real Property created through subdivision or any other legal process for dividing land and subjected , to this Declaration by an appropriate recording, with the exception of Lots and dedicated rights of way. ARTICLE 2. RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Section 2.1 Description of Association. The Association is a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington charged with the duties and vested with the powers prescribed by law and set forth in the Governing Documents, as they may be amended from time to time; provided, however, that no Governing Documents of the Association other than this Declaration shaH for any reason be amended or otherwise changed or interpreted so as to be inconsistent with this Declaration. The Association shaH have a perpetual existence and may not be dissolved for forty years after the date upon which this Declaration is recorded. Upon dissolution or final winding up of the Association entity under the laws of the State of Washington, aH of its assets remaining after payment to creditors will be distributed or sold, and the sales proceeds distributed, to the members of the Association entity in accordance with the Articles, Bylaws, and provisions of Ch. 24.03 RCW. The Owners are responsible for providing that the Association continues to be a functioning legal entity. Section 2.2 Association Board. During the Development Period, the Declarant shaH manage the Association and shall have aH the powers of the Board set forth herein. Upon termination of the Development Period, a Board shaH be elected from among the Owners, as provided in the Bylaws to manage the Association. The Board shall elect officers of the Association from among the Board -4- {0242!!72.DOC;! J ,-------------------------------- -------------------------- • • members, which shall include a president who shall preside over the meetings of the Board and meetings of the Association. Section 2.3 Votes Appurtenant to Lots. Every Owner shall be a member of the Association and, except as provided in Section 2.4, shall be entitled to cast one (I) vote in the Association for each Lot owned. A vote shall be appurtenant to and held and owned in the same manner as the beneficial fee interest in the Lot to which it relates. A vote shall not be separated from ownership of the Lot to which it relates; provided, however, that ~hen more than one entity holds the beneficial fee interest in any Lot, the vote therefore shall be cast as the Owners among themselves determine, but, except as provided in Section 2.4, in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Lot; and if the several Owners of a Lot are unable to agree as to the casting of their vote, such vote shall not be counted. If a Lot is further subdivided as provide in Section 6.1 hereof, the Owner of each additional Lot created shall be entitled to one vote in the Association for each Lot owned. Section 2.4 Initial Number of Votes. During the Development Period, each Lot owned by Declarant shall be entitled to five (5) votes in the Association and each Lot owned by an Owner other than Declarant shall be entitled to one (I) vote. Upon expiration of the Development Period, the total number of votes in the Association shall be equal to the number of Lots subject to this Declaration and each Lot shall be entitled to one (1) vote. Section 2.5 Owner's Compliance. By acceptance of a deed to a Lot, recording of a real estate contract conveying title to a Lot, or any other means of acquisition of an ownership interest, the Owner thereof covenants and agrees, on behalf of himself and his heirs, successors, and assigns, to observe and comply with the terms of the Final Plat, this Declaration, the Governing Documents of the Association, and all rules and regulations duly promulgated pursuant to Association Action. Section 2.6 Bylaws, Rules and Regulations. The Board on behalf of the Association shall have the power to adopt, modify, and amend rules and regulations governing the use of the Real Property, provided that such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with this Declaration. The rules and regulations shall apply uniforntly to all Owners, except as specifically provided herein. The Board shall have the power to enforce the rules and regulations on behalf of the Association and may prescribe penalties for the violation of such rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, suspension of the right to use the Common Areas or portions thereof. Any such rules and regulations shall become effective thirty (30) days after promulgation and shall be mailed to all Owners prior to their effective date. A copy of the rules and regulations then in force shall be retained by the secretary of the Association. The Declarant, on behalf of the Board, may adopt the initial Bylaws and rules and regulations of the Association. Section 2.7 Implied Rights. The Association may exercise any right or privilege given to it expressly by this Declaration or the Bylaws or which may be reasonably implied from, or reasonably necessary to effectuate, any such right or privilege. Section 2.8 Association Property. The Association, through action of its Board, may acquire, hold and dispose of tangible and intangible personal property and real property. - 5 - {02421172.DOC;1 } • • ARTICLE 3. ASSOCIATION BUDGET, ASSESSMENTS, AND LIENS Section 3.1 Owner's Covenants to Pay Assessments. By acquisition of any ownership interest in a Lot, the Owner thereof covenants and agrees thereby, on behalf of himself and his heirs, successors, and assigns, to pay the Association, in advance, all general and special assessments levied as provided herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Declarant shall not be obligated to pay any assessments. Section 3.2 Association Bndget. The Association shall prepare, or cause the preparation of, an operating budget for the Association at least annually, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The operating budget shall set forth all sums required by the Association, as estimated by the Association, to meet its annual costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, all management and administration costs, operating and maintenance expenses of the Common Areas, and services furnished to or in connection with the Common Areas. including the amount of all taxes and assessments levied against, and the cost of liability, property and other insurance on, the Common Areas, and including charges for any services furnished by or to the Association; the cost of utilities and other services; and the cost of funding all reserves established by the Association. The funds required to meet the Association's annual expenses shall be raised from a general assessment against each Owner as provided hereafter. After adoption of the operating budget, the Association may revise the operating budget at any time and from time to time, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 3.2(a) below, as it deems necessary or advisable in order to take into account and defray additional costs and expenses of the Association. (a) Adoption of Budget. Within thirty (30) days after adoption by the Board of any proposed regular or special budget of the Association, the Board shall set a date for a meeting of the Owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen (14) nor more than sixty (60) days after mailing of the summary. Unless at that meeting the Owners to which a majority of the votes in the Association are allocated reject the budget, in person or by proxy, the budget is ratified, whether or not a quorum is present. In the event the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the Owners shall be continued until such time as the Owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the Board. (b) Budget Summary. As part of the summary of the budget provided to all Owners, the Board shall disclose to the Owners: (i) The current amount of regular assessments budgeted for contribution to the Reserve Account (defined below), the recommended contribution rate from the Reserve Study, and the funding plan upon which the recommended contribution rate is based; (ii) If additional regular or special assessments are scheduled to be imposed, the date the assessments are due, the amount of the assessments per each Owner per month or year, and the purpose of the assessments; (iii) Based upon the most recent Reserve Study and other information, whether currently projected Reserve Account balances will be sufficient at the end of each year to meet the Association's obligation for major maintenance, repair, or replacement of Reserve Components during the next thirty (30) years; -6- {02421172.DOC;1 J • • (iv) If Reserve Account· balances are not projected to be sufficient, what additional assessments may be necessary to ensure tbat sufficient Reserve Account funds will be available each year during the next thirty (30) years, the approximate dates assessments may be due, and the amount of the assessments per Owner per month or year; (v) The estimated amount recommended in the Reserve Account at the end of tbe current fiscal year based on the most recent Reserve Study, the projected Reserve Account cash balance at tbe end of the current fiscal year, and the percent funded at the date of the latest Reserve Study; (vi) The estimated amount recommended in the Reserve Account based upon tbe most recent Reserve Study at the end of each of the next five (5) budget years, the projected Reserve Account cash balance in each of those years, 'and the projected percent funded for each of those years; and (vii) If the funding plan approved by the Association is implemented, tbe projected Reserve Account cash balance in each of the next five (5) budget years and the percent funded for each of tbose years. Section 3.3 Levy of General Assessment. In order to meet the costs and expenses projected in its operating budget, the Association shall by Association Action determine and levy in advance on every Lot a general assessment. The amount of each Lot's general assessment shall be the amount of the Association's operating budget divided by the sum of the number of Lots. The Association shall make reasonable efforts to determine the amount of tbe general assessment payable by each Owner for an assessment period at least thirty (30) days in advance of the beginning of such period and shall at that time prepare a roster of the Owners and the general assessment allocated to each, which shall be open to inspection by any Owner upon reasonable notice to the Association. Notice of the general assessment shall thereupon be sent to each Owner; provided, however, that notification to an Owner of the amount of an assessment shall not be necessary to the validity tbereof. The omission by the Association, before tbe expiration of any assessment period, to fix the amount of the general assessment hereunder for that or the next period, shall not be deemed a waiver or modification in any respect of the provisions of this Article or a release by any Owner from the obligation to pay tbe general assessment, or any installment tbereof, for that or any subsequent assessment period, but tbe general assessment fixed for tbe preceding period shall continue until a new assessment is fixed. Upon any revision by the Association of tbe operating budget during the assessment period for which such budget was prepared, the Association shall, if necessary, revise the general assessment levied against Lots and give notice to each Owner. Section 3.4 Payment of General Assessment. Upon Association Action, installments of general assessments may be collected on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis, as determined by the Board. Unless the Board otherwise provides, one-twelftb of tbe General Assessment shall be due in advance on the first day of each calendar month. Any Owner may prepay one or more installments on any assessment levied by the Association without penalty. Section 3.5 Nondiscriminatory Assessment. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, no assessment shall be made at any time which may unreasonably discriminate against any particular Owner or group of Owners in favor of other Owners. However, a special assessment may be made against a particular Owner and Owner's Lot by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Board if, after notice from the Association of failure to maintain such Lot in a condition comparable to the other Lots has been given, the Association elects to expend funds to bring such Owner's Lot up to such comparable standard. -7 - I02421172.DOC;1 } -~---------- • • Section 3.6 Commencement of Assessments. Liability of an Owner for assessments shall commence on the date upon which any instrument of transfer to such Owner becomes operative (such as the date of a deed or the date of a recorded real estate contract for the sale of any Lot) or, if earlier, the commencement date of Owner's occupancy of such Lot. The Declarant, its successors and assigns shall not be liable for any assessments with respect to any Lot. Upon the initial closing on any Lot from Declarant, the buyer thereof shall pay a one-time assessment in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). This amount shall be in addition to any assessment established by the Association, and shall be paid by all buyers, including builders. Section 3.7 Certificates of Assessment Payment. Upon request, the Board shall furnish written certificates certifying the extent to which assessment payments on a specified Lot are paid and current to the date stated therein. A reasonable charge may be made by the Association for the issuance of such certificate. Section 3.8 Special Assessments. In addition to the general assessments authorized by this Article, the Association may, by Association Action, levy a special assessment or assessments at any time, applicable to that year only, for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction or reconstruction, inordinate repair, or replacement of a capital improvement located upon or forming a part of the Common Areas, including necessary fixtures and personal property related thereto, or for such other purpose as the Association may consider appropriate, including maintenance of a Lot as provided in Section 3.5. The due dates of any special assessment payments shall be fixed by the Association Action authorizing such special assessment. Section 3.9 Effect of Nonpayment of Assessment. If any assessment payment is not made in full within thirty (30) days after it was first due and payable, the unpaid amounts shall constitute a lien against the Lot assessed and shall bear interest from such due date at a rate set by the Board in its rules and regulations which shall not exceed the highest rate then permitted by law. By acceptance of a deed to a Lot, recording of a real estate contract therefore, or any other means of acquisition of an ownership interest, and whether or not it shall be so expressed in any such deed or other instrument, each Owner shall be deemed to grant thereby to the Association, its agents and employees, and to Declarant during the Development Period, the right and power to bring all actions against such Owner personally for the collection of such assessments as a debt, and to enforce the liens created by this Declaration in favor of the Association by foreclosure of the continuing liens in the same form of action as is then provided for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. The liens provided for in this Declaration shall be for the benefit of the Association, and shall arise in accordance with the terms of this Declaration without the necessity of any further action by the Association. The Association shall have the power to bid at any lien foreclosure sale and to acquire, hold, lease, mortgage, and convey the Lot foreclosed against. Section 3.10 Duration of Lien. Any lien arising pursuant to Section 3.9 shall be a continuing lien in the amount stated in the assessment from the time of the assessment, but expiring pro rata as the assessment payments are made, and shall also be the personal obligation of the person or entity who is the Owner of the Lot at the time of the assessment. The personal obligation to pay a prior assessment shall not pass to successors in interest unless expressly assumed by them; provided, however, that in the case of a sale or contract for the sale of any Lot which is charged with the payment of an assessment, the person or entity who is the Owner immediately prior to the date of such sale shall be personally liable for the amounts of the monthly installments due prior to said date, and the new Owner shall be personally liable - 8 - {02421172.DOC;I} ------------------------------ • • for monthly installments becoming due on or after such date. The foregoing limitation on the duration of the personal obligation of an Owner to pay assessments shall not, however, affect the validity or duration of the continuing lien for unpaid assessments against the respective Lot. Section 3.11 Suspension for Nonpayment of Assessment. If an Owner shall be in arrears in the payment of any assessment due, or shall otherwise be in default of the performance of any terms of the Governing Documents of the Association for a period of thirty (30) days, said Owner's voting rights shall without the necessity of any further action by the Association, be suspended (except as against foreclosing secured parties) and shall remain suspended until all payments, including interest thereon, are brought current and any other default is remedied. No Owner is relieved of liability for assessments by nonuse of the Common Areas or by abandonment of a Lot. Sectiou 3.12 Reserve Account for Repair or Replacement. As a Common Expense, the Association may establish and maintain a reserve fund for major maintenance, repair or replacement of the Common Areas and any improvements thereon ("Reserve Account"). Such Reserve Account shall be deposited with a banking institution, and in the name of the Association. The Reserve Account shall be expended only for the purpose of affecting the major maintenance, repair or replacement of the Common Areas and any improvements and community facilities thereon, and to any sidewalks, roads, walls or pathways developed as a part of Reserve at Tiffany Park, equipment replacement, and for operating contingencies of a nonrecurring nature. The Board is responsible for administering the Reserve Account. The Association may establish such other reserves for such other purposes as it may from time to time consider to be necessary or appropriate. The proportional interest of any Owner in any such reserves shall be considered an appurtenance of his Lot and shall not be separately withdrawn, assigned, or transferred from the Lot to which it appertains. (a) Withdrawals from Reserve Account. In addition to withdrawals for the purposes set forth in Section 3.12 above, the Association may withdraw funds from the Reserve Account to pay for unforeseen or unbudgeted costs that are unrelated to maintenance, repair, or replacement of Reserve Components. The Board shall record any such withdrawal in the Association's minute books, cause notice of any such withdrawal to be hand delivered or sent prepaid by first-class U.S. mail to the mailing address of each Owner, and adopt a repayment schedule not to exceed twenty-four (24) months unless the Board determines that repayment within twenty-four (24) months would impose an unreasonable burden on the Owners. Payment for major maintenance, repair, or replacement of the Reserve Components out of cycle with the Reserve Study projections or not included in the Reserve Study may be made from the Reserve Account without meeting the notification or repayment requirements under this Section 3.12(a). Section 3.13 Reserve Studies. Unless (a) there are ten (10) or fewer homes in the Association; (b) the Board determines that the Association does not have Significant Assets; (c) the cost of a Reserve Study exceeds five percent (5%) of the Association's annual hudget; or (d) the Board determines that doing so would impose an unreasonable hardship, the Board shall, cause the Association to prepare an initial reserve study (a "Reserve Study") based upon a visual site inspection conducted by a Reserve Study Professional. The Reserve Study shall comply with the requirements of RCW 64.38.070, and shall be updated annually unless doing so would impose an unreasonable hardship. At least every three (3) years, an updated Reserve Study must be prepared and based upon a visual site inspection conducted by a Reserve Study Professional. (a) Owner Demand. When more than three (3) years have passed since the date of the last Reserve Study prepared by a Reserve Study Professional, the Owners to which at least thirty-five - 9 - {02421172.DOC;1 I • • percent (35%) of the votes are allocated may demand, in writing, to the Association that the cost of a Reserve Study be included in the next budget and that the Reserve Study be prepared by the end of that budget year. The written demand must refer to RCW 64.38.080. The Board shall, upon receipt of the written demand, provide the Owners who make the demand reasonable assurance that the Board will include a Reserve Study in the next budget and, if the budget is not rejected by a majority of the Owners, will arrange for the completion.of a Reserve Study. Section 3.14 Limitations on Liability related to Reserve Account and Reserve Studies. Monetary damages or any other liability may not be awarded against or imposed upon the Association, its officers, the Board, or those persons who may have provided advice or assistance to the Association, its officers, or the Board, for failure to: (a) establish a Reserve Account; (b) have a current Reserve Study prepared or updated in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 64.38 RCW and this Declaration; or (c) make the required disclosures in accordance with Section 3.2(b) and Chapter 64.38 RCW. Section 3.15 Failure to Comply Does Not Relieve Owners. An Owner's duty to pay for Common Expenses is not excused, and a budget ratified by the Owners is not invalidated, because of the Association's failure to comply with the Reserve Study or Reserve Account requirements. Sectiou 3.16 Certaiu Areas Exempt. The Tracts and all portions of Reserve at Tiffany Park dedicated to and accepted by a public authority shall be exempt from assessments by the Association. ARTICLE 4. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE' Sectiou 4.1 Architectural Control Committee. An Architectural Control Committee ("Committee") consisting of at least three (3) members, but in any event always an odd number of members, is hereby created with the rights and powers set forth in this Declaration. The initial members of the Committee shall be representatives appointed by Declarant. Committee members shall not be entitled to compensation for their services hereunder, except as may be determined by the Board of Directors. Declarant shall have the right and power at all times to appoint or renew the appointment of the members of the Committee or to fill any vacancy until the expiration of the Development Period. After the expiration of the Development Period, the Board shall have the power to appoint and remove the members of the Committee. Section 4.2 Jurisdiction and Purpose. The Committee shall review proposed plans and specifications for construction of all residences and other Structures within Reserve at Tiffany Park, including any additions, exterior alterations, fences, major landscaping, clearing, painting, paving and excavation. During the Development Period, a prospective Owner shall submit architectural and landscaping plans and specifications to the Committee for its review prior to closing the purchase of a Lot. Prior to submittal to the Committee, the Owner shall verify all improvements meet all local municipal codes. The Committee assumes no liability and holds no authority to approve, permit, or allow any construction on behalf of the local governing authorities. The Committee shall adopt and publish rules and procedures for the review of such plans and specifications. It shall be the obligation of each Owner or prospective Owner to be familiar with the rules and procedures of the Committee. As conditions precedent to approval of any matter submitted to it, the Committee shall find: (a) Consistent with Declaration. The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the Owner and consistent with this Declaration. . IO· {02421172.DOC;1 I • • (b) General Considerations. General architectural considerations, including relationship and layout of Structures to natural features and adjacent homes, orientation and location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, and similar elements have been designed to be compatible with the overall design of Reserve at Tiffany Park. (c) Site Considerations. General site considerations, including site layout, relationship of site to vegetation, natural features, open space and topography, orientation and locations of buildings, vehicular access and driveway lighting, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences and similar elements have been designed to be compatible with the overall design of Reserve at Tiffany Park. (d) Landscape Considerations. General landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of existing landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief, to complement buildings and Structures, and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the Owners in general and the enhancement of the property values in Reserve at Tiffany Park. (e) Siding. Without limiting the foregoing, each residence, improvement or Structure constructed on a Lot shall be built of new materials except, with approval of the Architectural Control Committee, decorative items such as used brick, weathered planking, and similar items may be incorporated. All siding materials shall be of masonry (including stucco, dryvit, cultured stone, brick, stone, or similar material), andlor wood or wood-type siding material. All paints or natural finishes shall be those colors commonly known as earth tones. (f) Roofing. The roof shall be a composition roof with a 30-year life. (g) Entry Walks, Porches and Decks. All front entry walks shall be exposed aggregate concrete, and all decks and wood porches shall be constructed of cedar or pressure-treated materials. (h) Driveways. All driveways shall be constructed of exposed aggregate concrete paving. (i) Local Codes. All buildings or Structures shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations. In the event of a conflict between any applicable codes and this Declaration, the codes shall govern. Section 4.3 Approval Procedures. Two copies of a preliminary application for approval must be submitted in writing to the Committee at the registered office of the Association. Within fifteen (15) days following receipt of a preliminary application, the Committee shall notify the applicant in writing as to whether the application is complete and, if not, of any additional information that may be required before the Committee can review the application. The Committee's rules and procedures may specify the payment of a reasonable nonrefundable fee, to be set forth in the Committee rules, for the purpose of defraying the costs associated with the Committee's review of the preliminary application. This fee may be adjusted from time to time by the Committee in accordance with its rules and procedures. The Committee shall review the application in accordance with the provisions of this Section as soon as possible after a complete application has been filed. The decision of a majority of the members of the -11 - {02421172.00C;1 J • • committee shall be the decision of the Committee. One copy of approved plans will remain in the Committee's files. All disapproved plans will be returned to the applicant. Section 4.4 Failure of Committee to Take Action. Except as provided in Section 4.6 below, in the event that the Committee fails to respond to an applicant's complete and properly submitted application within thirty (30) days after the Committee has notified the applicant that the application is complete, formal written approval will not be required, and the applicant shall be deemed to have fully complied with the provisions for approval; provided, however, if the Committee delivers notice of the need for one (l) thirty (30) day extension prior to expiration of the above-referenced thirty (30) day period, the Committee shall have thirty (30) additional days to make its decision. Section 4.5 Committee's Obligation. The Committee, in its deliberations and in the discharge of its obligations hereunder, shall act objectively and fairly in making decisions concerning various plans, specifications, plot plans and landscape plans submitted to it by various applicants for consideration in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration. Further, the determinations of the Committee as to noncompliance shall be in writing, signed by the Committee, and shall set forth in reasonable detail the reason for noncompliance. The Committee may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application or any part thereof. In all cases, the sole responsibility for satisfying the provisions of this Declaration and all local building codes and governmental requirements rests with the applicant. In consideration of the Committee's review of an applicant's application, the applicant shall indemnify and hold the Committee harmless from any claim or damages resulting from applicant's failure to comply with applicable building codes or other governmental requirements. Section 4.6 Exemptions and Variances From Committee Requirements. The Committee may, upon request, grant exemptions and variances from the rules and procedures of the Committee and the requirements of this Declaration when the party requesting such exemption or variance establishes to the satisfaction of the Committee that the improvements or other matters which are desired by the applicant are aesthetically as appealing, suited to climatic conditions, and compatible with the overall character of the development as are similar improvements or matters which conform to the requirements of this Declaration. Request for an exemption or variance shall be submitted in writing to the Committee and shall contain such information as the Committee shall from time to time require. The Committee shall consider applications for exemption or variance and shall render its decisions within thirty (30) days after notice to the applicant of proper submission. The failure of the Committee to approve an application for an exemption or variance shall constitute disapproval of such application. Section 4.7 Construction Deposit. For purposes of protecting the Common Areas and Common Area improvements against damage during construction by an Owner, his contractors and agents, the Committee is authorized, but is not obligated, to require a cash deposit from each Owner to whom approval of plans is given of an amount deemed appropriate by the Committee for such purposes ("Construction Deposit"), if the Committee finds that potential damage can be done to the Common Area(s) caused by Owner's proposed construction. The Construction Deposit, however, shall not exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). In the event an Owner, his contractor, agents or employees causes any damage or destruction to any portion of the Common Areas or Common Area Improvements, the Committee shall notify such Owner and request the replacement or repair of the item or area damaged or destroyed. The Owner shall have a period of two (2) business days after the date or receipt of such notice to advise the Committee of its intended course of action and its schedule for correction of the damage, and to commence such correction. The Committee shall in its sole discretion approve or disapprove such course and schedule, and the Owner agrees to make such changes thereto as are necessary to obtain the -12 - {02421172.DOC:l J • • Committee's approval. If the Owner fails to correct the damage in the manner or within the time approved by the Committee, the Committee may, at its option, perform such work as is necessary to remedy the situation on behalf and at the expense of the Owner and apply the Construction Deposit against the cost thereof. If the cost of such work exceeds the total amount of the Construction Deposit, the Owner shall pay the Association that excess cost within ten (10) days of demand by the Committee. Upon completion of construction of the Improvements on the Lot, and following a joint inspection of the Improvements and Lot by the Owner and the Committee to verify that no damage to the Common Areas and/or Common Area Improvements has occurred, the Committee shall make a final determination of compliance and return the remaining balance, if any, of the Construction Deposit to the Owner, without interest within ten (10) days of such final determination Section 4.8 Failure of Applicant to Comply. Failure of the applicant to comply with the rules and procedures of the Committee or the final application as approved by the Committee shall, at the election of the Association's Board exercised after thirty (30) days' written notice to such applicant, constitute a violation of this Declaration. In that event, the Board shall be empowered to assess a penalty commensurate with the violation, which shall constitute a lien against such Lot, enforceable as provided herein and/or pursue any other remedy, including, but not limited to, an action for injunctive relief or specific performance. ARTICLE 5. SUBORDINATION OF LIENS Section 5.1 Intent of Provisions. The provisions of this Article 5 apply for the benefit of each Mortgagee who lends money for purposes of construction or to secure the payment of the purchase price of a Lot. Section 5.2 Mortgagee's Nonliability. The holder of a Mortgage shall not, by reason of its security interest only, be liable for the payment of any assessment or charge, nor for the observance or performance of any covenant or restriction, excepting only those enforceable by equitable relief and not requiring the payment of money, and except as hereafter provided. Section 5.3 Mortgagee's Rights During Foreclosure. During foreclosure of a Mortgage, including any period of redemption, the holder of the Mortgage may exercise any or all of the rights and privileges of the Owner of the encumbered Lot, including but not limited to the right to vote in the Association to the exclusion of the Owner's exercise of such rights and privileges. Section 5.4 Mortgagee as Owner. At such time as a Mortgagee shall become the record Owner of the Lot previously encumbered by the Mortgage, the Mortgagee shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Declaration, including the obligation to pay for all assessments and charges in the same manner as any Owner. Section 5.5 Survival of Assessment Obligation. After the foreclosure of a security interest in a Lot, any unpaid assessments shall continue to exist and remain as a personal obligation of the Owner against whom the same was levied, and the Association shall use reasonable efforts to collect the same from such Owner. Section 5.6 Subordination of Assessment Liens. The liens for assessments provided for in this Declaration shall be subordinate to the lien of any first Mortgage or other security interest placed upon a Lot as a construction loan security interest or as a purchase price security interest, and the -13 - {02421172.DOC;! I • • Association will, upon demand, execute a written subordination document to confirm such priority. The sale or transfer of any Lot or of any interest therein shall not affect the liens provided for in this Declaration except as otherwise specifically provided for herein, and in the case of a transfer of a Lot for purposes of realizing a security interest, liens shall arise against the Lot for any assessment payments coming due after the date of completion of foreclosure. ARTICLE 6. USE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 6.1 Authorized Uses. Reserve at Tiffany Park shall be used solely for residential purposes and related facilities normally incidental to a residential community. After the Development Period no Lot shall be further subdivided, except as permitted in this Declaration without prior approval conferred by Association Action. Section 6.2 Leasing Restrictions. No residence on any Lot may be leased or rented 'by any party for a period of fewer than thirty (30) days, nor shall less than the whole of any Lot be leased or rented. Each lease or rental agreement shall be in writing and shall by its terms provide that it is subject in all respects to the provisions of the Governing Documents. Any failure by a lessee to comply with the terms of the Governing Documents shall be a default under the lease, whether or not it is so expressed therein. Other than the foregoing, there is no restriction on the right of any Owner to lease his Lot or residence. Section 6.3 Animals. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept in Reserve at Tiffany Park except as specifically provided herein. Domesticated dogs, cats, or other conventional household pets may be kept if they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes, and all animals must be in compliance with applicable codes and regulations. "Other conventional household pets" shall include only traditionally domesticated pets and shall not include any exotic pets such as large or potentially dangerous reptiles, potentially harmful insects, bees, large birds, wild animals, and animals not normally domesticated, all of which are strictly prohibited in Reserve at Tiffany Park. No domestic pet may be kept if its presence or actions constitute a public or private nuisance, Pets shall be registered, licensed, and inoculated from time to time as required by law. When not confined to the Owner's Lot, pets within Reserve at Tiffany Park shall be leashed and accompanied by a person responsible for cleaning up any animal waste. No pets shall be tethered to any rope, cord, chain, etc., while outdoors on a Lot within Reserve at Tiffany Park for longer than two hours at a time. Section 6.4 Commercial Uses. No commercial enterprise, including itinerant vendors, shall be permitted on any Lot; provided, however, that the Association may, by adopting rules and regulations, permit specified home occupations to be conducted if allowed by law and if such occupation will not, in the reasonable judgment of the Association, cause traffic congestion or other disruption of the Reserve at Tiffany Park community; and provided further that no signs or advertising devices of any character shall be permitted. Section 6.5 Vehicle Storage. No storage of goods, vehicles, boats, trailers, trucks, campers, recreational vehicles or other equipment or device shall be permitted in open view from any Lot, except this shall not exclude temporary (less than twenty-four (24) hours) parking of vehicles on the designated driveway areas adjacent to garages on the Lots. Upon forty-eight (48) hours notice to the Owner of an improperly parked or stored vehicle, boat, or other equipment, the Association has authority to have removed at the Owner's expense any such vehicle visible from the street that is parked on any Lot, street or within a Common Area for more than twenty-four (24) hours. -14 - I02421172.DOC;1 I • • Section 6.6 Garbage. All trash shall be placed in sanitary containers that are screened so as not to be visible from adjoining Structures or streets or roadways. No Lot or any portion thereof shall be used as a dumping ground for trash or rubbish of any kind. Yard rakings, dirt and debris resulting from landscaping work or Construction shall not be dumped onto adjoining lots or streets or roadways. Section 6.7 Utilities Underground. Except for hoses and the like which are reasonably necessary in connection with normal lawn maintenance, no water pipe, sewer pipe, gas pipe, drainage pipe, telephone, power, or television cable, or similar transmission line shall be installed or maintained above the surface of the ground. Section 6.8 Signs. Except for entrance, street, directional, traffic control. and safety signs, no promotional signs or advertising devices of any character shall be posted or displayed in Reserve at Tiffany Park; provided, however, that one temporary real estate sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area may be erected upon any Lot or attached to any residence placed upon the market for sale or lease. Any such temporary real estate sign shall be removed promptly following the sale or rental or such Lot or residence. Section 6.9 No Obstruction of Easements. No structure, planting, or other material shall be placed or permitted to remain upon the Real Property which may damage or interfere with any easement or the installation or maintenance of utilities; or which may unreasonably change, obstruct, or retard direction or flow of any drainage channels. No decorative planting, structure or fence may be maintained within an easement area. Section 6.10 Antennas and Clotheslines. No external aerial antenna, free-standing antenna towers, satellite reception dishes of any kind or clotheslines shall be permitted in Reserve at Tiffany Park; provided, however, satellite dishes of less than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter are permitted provided the Architectural Control Committee approves the location of same. Satellite dishes greater than twenty- four (24) inches in diameter may be allowed through written consent of the Architectural Control Committee. Section 6.11 Owners' Maintenance Responsibilities. The maintenance, upkeep, and repair of individual Lots and homes shall be the sale responsibility of the individual Owners thereof, and in no way shall it be the responsibility of the Association, its agents, officers or directors. Owners shall maintain their Lots and homes in good repair and in a clean, sightly, and sanitary condition at all times. Without limitation as to the foregoing, each Owner shall be obligated to keep his Lot and home in a clean, sightly and sanitary condition and maintain the landscaping on his Lot in a healthy and attractive state and in a manner,comparable to that on the other Lots in Reserve 'at Tiffany Park. No storage of firewood shall be permitted in front yards. After thirty (30) days' written notice to an Owner from the Association of such Owner's failure to so maintain his home or Lot, and after approval by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote by the Board, the Association shall have the right, through its agents and employees, to enter upon any Lot which has been found to violate the foregoing standards in order to restore the home or Lot to such standards. The cost of such work shall be a special assessment on such Owner and his Lot only, Section 6.12 Weapons. No firearms of any kind or nature, including rifles, handguns, bows, slingshots, BB guns, slings, traps, or any other like weapon, shall be used or discharged within Reserve at Tiffany Park except by authorized governmental officials. -15 - {02421172.DOC;1 } • • Section 6.13 Nuisances Prohibited. No noxious or offensive activity shall be conducted in any portion of Reserve at Tiffany Park. nor shall anything be done or maintained therein in derogation or violation of the laws of the State of Washington or any other applicable governmental entity. Nothing shall be done or maintained on any portion of Reserve at Tiffany Park which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or detract from the value of the Reserve at Tiffany Park community. The Association shall determine by Association Action whether any given use of a Lot unreasonably interferes with the rights of the other Owners to the use and enjoyment of their respective Lots or of the Common Areas, and such determination shall be final and conclusive. Section 6.14 Preservation of Landscaping. No party subject to the terms of this Declaration or hislher/their agents, employees or guests shall destroy or otherwise materially adversely impact landscaping on Common Areas and/or dedicated Tracts, or as otherwise governed by applicable laws, codes and regulations. Section 6.15 Temporary Structures. No Structure or improvement of a temporary character, including without limitation a trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn, or other outbuilding shall be installed, placed or used an any Lot as a dwelling or residence, either temporarily or permanently. Section 6.16 Window Coverings. Curtains, drapes, blinds or valances shall be installed on all windows within ninety (90) days of occupancy of a residence on a Lot. No newspapers, bed sheets or other makeshift window coverings shall be visible from the exterior of the residence. Section 6.17 Fences. All fences shall conform to the fence detail attached as Exhibit B, as may be modified by the Architectural Control Committee from time to time, unless otherwise authorized by the Board. Specifically, all fences on side and rear yards abutting a private or public street or Common Area shall conform to the open fence detail, and fences on all other side and rear yards must conform to the full panel detail. All fences must be stained with Sherwin Williams Woodscapes Chestnut Semi-Transparent stain unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Unless otherwise authorized by the Board, no fence, wall hedge or mass planting over three feet in height, other than foundation planting, shall be permitted to extend nearer to any street than the minimum setback line; however, nothing shall prevent erection of a necessary retaining wall, the top of which does not extend more than two feet above the finished grade at the back of said retaining wall. Section 6.18 Lot Size Restriction. No Lot or portion of a Lot in the Plat shall be divided and sold or resold or ownership changed or transferred, whereby the ownership of any portion of Reserve at Tiffany Park shall be less than the area required for the use district in which located. Section 6.19 Vehicular Access Restriction. Lots shall take access from internal roads. Section 6.20 Damage. Any damage to streets, Plat improvements, entry structure, fences, landscaping, mailboxes, lights and lighting standards by Lot Owners, their children, contractors, agents, visitors, friends, relatives or service personnel shall be repaired and restored to like new condition by such Owner within twelve (12) days from the occurrence of such damage. After thirty (30) days' written notice to an Owner from the Association of such Owner's failure to so repair, and after approval by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote by the Board, the Association shall have the right, through its agents and employees, make such repairs on behalf of such Owner. The cost of such work shall be a special assessment on such Owner and his Lot only. -16 - {02421172.DOC;! } • • ARTICLE 7. COMMON AREAS Section 7.1 Title to Common Areas. All Common Areas were dedicated in accordance with the terms of the Final Plat upon recording of the Final Plat. Every Common Area shall be subject to an easement of common use and enjoyment in favor of the Association and every Owner, their heirs, successors, and assigns, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Governing Documents and the Final Plat. Section 7.2 Maintenance of Common Areas. The Association shall maintain, repair, replace, improve, and otherwise manage all of the Common Areas so as to keep them in good repair and condition and shall conduct such additional maintenance, repair, replacement, construction, or reconstruction as may be determined pursuant to Association Action. The Association shall take any action necessary or appropriate to the maintenance and upkeep of the Common Areas and improvements thereon. Section 7.3 Monument and Landscaping Maintenance and Easements. The Association shall be responsible for maintaining any Reserve at Tiffany Park monument signage and shall be responsible for maintaining any landscaping in Common Areas, including but not limited to planter strips, in accordance with the terms of the Final Plat and all applicable laws, codes and regulations. ARTICLE 8. CERTAIN GRANTS, EASEMENTS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS [PLAT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE LOCATED HERE] ARTICLE 9. INSURANCE; CASUALTY LOSSES; CONDEMNATION Section 9.1 Insurance Coverage. The Association shall, subject to change by Association Actions, maintain at all times as an Association expense a policy or policies and bonds written by companies licensed to do business in Washington providing: (a) Insurance against loss or damage by fire and other hazards covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement in an amount as near as practicable to the full insurable replacement value (without deduction for depreciation) of the Common Areas, with the Association named as insured as trustee for the benefit of Owners and Mortgagees as their interests appear. (b) General comprehensive liability insurance with a combined single limit of $1,000,000 insuring the Association, the Owners, and Declarant against any liability to the public or to the Owners and their guests, invitees, licensees, or tenants, incident to the ownership or use of the Common Areas. (c) Worker's compensation insurance to the extent required by applicable laws. (d) Such other insurance as the Association deems advisable; provided, that notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the Association shall continuously maintain in effect casualty, flood, and liability insurance and a fidelity bond meeting the insurance and fidelity bond requirements for similar projects established by Federal National Mortgage Association, Governmental National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Housing Authority, -17 - {0242!!72.DOC;! } • • and Veterans Administration, so long as any of them is a Mortgagee or Owner, except to the extent such coverage is not available or has been waived in writing by such agencies. Section 9.2 Casualty Losses. In the event of substantial damage to or destruction of any of the Common Areas, the Association shall give prompt written notice of such damage or destruction to the Owners and to the holders of all First Mortgages. Insurance proceeds for damage or destruction to any part of the Common Areas shall be paid to the Association as a trustee for the Owners, or its authorized representative, including an insurance trustee, which shall segregate such proceeds from other funds of the Association. Section 9.3 Condemnation. In the event any part of the Common Areas is made the subject matter of any condemnation or eminent domain proceeding, or is otherwise sought to be acquired by any condemning authority, the Association shall give prompt notice of any such proceeding or proposed acquisition to the Owners and to the holders of all First Mortgages who have requested from the Association notification of any such proceeding or proposed acquisition. All compensation, damages, or other proceeds therefrom, shall be payable to the Association. ARTICLE 10. ENFORCEMENT Section 10.1 Right to Enforce. The Association, Declarant, or any Owner shall have the right to enforce, by any appropriate proceeding at law or in equity, all covenants, conditions, restrictions, . reservations, liens, and charges now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. Section 10.2 Remedies Cumulative. Remedies provided by this Declaration are in addition to, cumulative with, and are not in lieu of, other remedies provided by law. There shall be, and there is hereby created, a conclusive presumption that any breach or attempted breach of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions herein cannot be adequately remedied by an action at law or exclusively by recovery of damages. Section 10.3 Covenants Running with the Land. The covenants, conditions, restnctlOns, liens, easements, enjoyment rights, and other provisions contained herein are intended to and shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all persons purchasing, leasing, subleasing, or otherwise occupying any portion of the Real Property, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, grantees, and assigns. All instruments granting or conveying any interest in any Lot shall be subject to this Declaration. ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENT AND REVOCATION Section 11.1 Amendment by Declarant or Association. Declarant may, on its sole signature, during the Development Period, amend this Declaration. This Declaration may also be amended at any time by an instrument executed by the Association for and on behalf of the Owners, provided, however, that such amendments shall have received the prior approval of a vote of the Owners having sixty percent (60%) of the total outstanding votes in the Association; and provided, further, that no such amendment shall be valid during the Development Period without the prior written consent of the Declarant. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the prior written approval of fifty-one percent (51 %) of all Mortgagees who have requested from the Association notification of amendments shall be required for any material amendment to the Declaration or the Association's Bylaws of any of the following: voting rights; assessments, assessment liens, and subordination of such liens; reserves for maintenance, repair, -18 - {02421172.DOC;1 I -------------------- • • and replacement of Common Areas; insurance or fidelity bonds; responsibility for maintenance and repair; reallocation of interest in the Common Areas; leasing of Lots other than as set forth herein; imposition of any restrictions on the right of an Owner to sell or transfer his Lot; a decision by the Association to establish self-management when professional management had been required previously by an eligible Mortgagee; any action to terminate the legal status of the Association after substantial destruction or condemnation occurs; or any provisions which are for the express benefit of Mortgagees or eligible insurers or guarantors of First Mortgages. Section 11-2 Effective Date. Amendments shall take effect only upon recording in the official real property records of King County, Washington. ARTICLE 12. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 12.1 Taxes_ Each Owner shall pay without abatement, deduction. or offset, all real and personal property taxes, general and special assessments, including local improvement assessments, and other charges of every description levied on or assessed against his Lot, or personal property located on or in the Lot. The Association shall likewise pay without abatement, deduction, or offset, all of the foregoing taxes, assessments, and charges levied or assessed against the Common Areas. Section 12.2 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any breach of this Declaration or failure to enforce any covenant of this Declaration shall constitute a waiver of any other breach, whether of the same or any. other covenant, condition, or restriction. Section 12.3 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a suit or action to enforce any provision of this Declaration or to collect any money due hereunder or to foreclose a lien, the unsuccessful party in such suit or action shall pay to the prevailing party all costs and expenses, including title reports, and all attorney's fees that the prevailing party has incurred in connection with the suit or action, in such amounts as the court may deem to be reasonable therein, and also including all costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with any appeal from the decision of a trial court or any intermediate appellate court. Section 12.4 No Abandonment of Obligation. No Owner, through his non-use of any Common Area, or by abandonment of his Lot, may avoid or diminish the burdens or obligations imposed by this Declaration. Section 12.5 Captions. The captions of the various articles. sections and paragraphs of this Declaration are for convenience of use and reference only and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content or intent of this Declaration or any parts of this Declaration. Section 12.6 Severability. Invalidation of anyone of these covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, or provisions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other of the same, all of which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 12.7 Notices. All notices, demands, or other communications ("Notices") permitted or required to be given by this Declaration shall be in writing and, if mailed postage prepaid by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed given three days after the date of mailing thereof, or on the date of actual receipt, if sooner; otherwise, Notices shall be deemed given on the date of actual receipt. Notice to any Owner may be given at any Lot owned by such Owner; provided, however, -19- {02421172.DOC;1 I . ---------------------- • • that an Owner may from time to time by Notice to the Association designate such other place or places or individuals for the receipt of future Notices. If there is more than one Owner of a Lot, Notice to anyone such Owner shall be sufficient. The address of Declarant and of the Association shall be given to each Owner at or before the time he becomes an Owner. If the address of Declarant or the Association shall be changed, Notice shall be given to all Owners. Section 12.8 Indemnification. The Association shall indemnify every officer and director authorized to act on behalf of the Association by the Board or by this Declaration against any and all expenses, including counsel fees, reasonably incurred by, or imposed upon, any officer and director in connection with any action, suit or proceeding if approved by the then Board to which he or she may be a party by reason of being or having been an officer and director. The officers and directors shall not be liable for any mistakes of jUdgment, negligent or otherwise, except for their own individual willful misfeasance, malfeasance, misconduct, or bad faith. The officers and directors shall have no personal liability with respect to any contract or other commitment made by them, in good faith, on behalf of the Association (except to the extent that such officers and directors may also be members of the Association), and the Association shall indemnify and forever hold each officer and director free and harmless against any and all liability to others on account of any such contract or commitment. The Association shall, as a Common Expense, maintain adequate general liability and officers' and directors' liability insurance to fund this obligation. Section 12.9 Applicable Law. This Declaration shall be construed in all respects under the laws of the State of Washington. [SIGNATURE ON NEXT PAGE] -20- {02421172.DOC;1 } • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Declarant has executed this Declaration the day and year first above written. Henley USA, LLC By: ________ _ Its: __________ _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the _______ of Henley USA, LLC, the limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she is authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said limited liability company. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this __ day of ________ , 2013. -21 - 102421 J72.DOC;1 } NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at _______________ . My commission expires ________ . • • Exhibit A THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A: BEGINNING AT A INTERSECTION OF NORTHERLY LINE OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY WITH EAST LINE OF WEST HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 123.74 FEET MORE OR LESS TO SOUTHERLY LINE OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE NORTH 31° 18' 16" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY 969.34 FEET TO POINT ON ARC OF CURVE FROM WHICH POINT A RADIUS TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 31° 18' 16" EAST 1014.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID ARC OF CURVE TO LEFT DISTANCE OF 831.63 FEET MORE OR LESS TO POINT ON NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CEDAR RIVER PIPELINE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE 1014.92 FEET MORE OR LESS TO POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF LINE DESCRIBER AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING INTERSECTION OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, TIFFANY PARK DIVISION NO.3 WITH NORTHERLY LINE OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF 60 FEET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG CURVE TO RGT RADIUS OF 1014.82 FEET DISTANCE OF 831.63 FEET MORE OR LESS TO SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY AND TERMINUS OF SAID LINE. PARCELC: THAT PORTION OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING NORTHERLY OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY. PARCELD: THAT PORTION OF SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBER AS FOLLOWS: -22- I 02421 I 72.DOC; I } • • BEGINNING INTERSECTION OF NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE AND EASTERLY LINE OF WEST HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTHERLY SAID EASTERLY LINE 123.74 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MARGIN OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE; THENCE NORTH 31° 18' 16" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF MARGIN 969.34 FEET TO A POINT TO A POINT ON ARC OF CURVE FROM WHICH POINT A TANGENT TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 31 ° 18' 16" EAST 1014.82 FEET AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY 453.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86° 32' 17" WEST 411.86 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON EAST BOUNDARY OF LOT 6 BLOCK 3, TIFFANY PARK DIVISION NO.2; THENCE ALONG BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 3 SOUTH 38° II' 27" WEST 55.36 FEET; THENCE ALONG BLOCK 3, SOUTH 60° 01' 54" WEST 222.76 FEET; THENCE ALONG BLOCK 3, SOUTH 30° 52' 58" WEST 130.13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79° 25' 15" EAST 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10°34'45" WEST 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22° 05' 56" EAST 785.69 FEET MORE OR LESS TO TAP ON NORTHERLY OF RIGHT OF WAY OF MARGIN OF CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE; THENCE SOUTH 78° 56' 52" EAST ALONG SAID PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY 60 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1014.82 FEET A DISTANCE OF 831.63 FEET MORE OR LESS TO TAP ON SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. -23 - {02421172.DOC;1 I {02421172,DOC;1 1 • 1 , .. ' I t II I 1.1'1 • Exhibit B Fence Detail l' I ... ~ .,." ____ 2 .. 4 !Op -.- -. " •. 4'9 ttIORIZ . ., \/ERT.-..... . -' ..... , CQMGIiEiE ' _. -t I I I I.J I 1 FENCE OET AI L. -24- .. + .. I 11 I 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: STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the / I day of 1'/4 V , 20J.2.., I installed / public information sign(s) and plastiC flyer box on the property. located at _-,-':;~€=-....LJ/p;r:..L---"S,,-"'--,-J ________ for the following project: RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Project name HEN' EY liSA I I C 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. 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 Install . n" han out package. Install "'''''\\\111\11 ~ AI 0' tClAA J....A 3 SUBSCRIB~~wu\lf~ to before me this ~ day of IV Vt:;'/flWr, 20_1_. ~ q,~ ......... ,'''\\\l\\I', "'0 I", ff . .#'~'\RE8 ""'" YO".~ O!t,,,,,; iLl ~. ; ."'-J =~ .. "f ~ ~ ~ ~r\. . ~CC=I,y ,..,<CI~_~ :=; ex: ~ en 0 • :; ~ ~ % ~ .,-,-:::-:--=..,...",..,..,,::-:-:-=-,--_,.....,-_.,---t:.,-=":-,--_:-:-:-.,...-:- <::; 0 ~1, ... ' -Q) ~ U) , NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, ~ "t,~" ,-.) <:;)j ~ = residing at 1/[;,""'-,. ,lL ~ ~'I',P:J fJ,.'#, ..or = ~ rv l VV!}.. ~:n"1 ......... {(-'I,~' I h\\\\",,'''' 0 .:: II/ ST"~.$' II,. _ ~ ............. ""\\\\"""""" My commission expires on H :\C ED\Data \F om1S-T cmp iatcs\Se I f-Help Handouts \planning \pubsign. doc If -09 -1'/ . RECEIVED NOV 14 Z013 CITY or RENTON PLANNING D1VISlor, - 3 -03/12 D. <C :! -J -<C .... W C 0 0 0 ::I: ~ 0 m ::I: C) -W Z ~ a: « Q. >-z « u.. u.. i= ~ « w > a: w CIJ w a: a: o z I," ". -"I' ,P' " 4>" I , 1 ", 1 • J , , , , . ,. '. \\ \'. ". . : i ,: .... • <1l '6 0\ ~ , \'li • i I I "'OG ," H " =11 n. ;1' ~~ >i IlU ; 11 ~:. ~k .~ ~I r , ;1. • . ,. I, !I • 1 i~ " U ,. 0 id! , ill i I ,. 'I , . • ~ II H I' G I' U !I I. ,. ,. ,. " ,. RECEIPT EG00016014 • BILLING CONTACT Henley USA LLC 11100 MAIN ST ,100 BELLEVUE, WA 98032 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA13-001572 PLAN -Environmental Review PLAN -Preliminary Plat Fee Technology Fee Printed On: 11/21/2013 Prepared By: Rocale Timmons TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: November 14,2013 PAYMENT METHOD Fheck #012853 Fheck #012853 Fheck #012853 SUBTOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $150.00 $5,150.00 $5,150.00 Page 1 of 1