HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR_HEX_Decision_150108_v1l
7
4
5
6
p!
O
9
1 {1
11
12
13
14
1
16
17
is
19
0
21
22
3
24
5
rry OF F gNTON
JAN 0 8 2015
MCEIVED
MY CLERn OFFICE
BEFORE THE HFARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
}
RE: The Deserve at Tiffany Park 1
Prelirninaq Plat �
� FINAL DF(:IIDN
Preliminary Plat and .CEPA Appeals �
LUA13-001572, TC'F, PP, CAE
1. SUMMARY
The applicant requests preliminary pkat approval for the Kthdivision ol'21.66 acres into singic-family
residential lots and sevural critical areas tracts located it the dead cod of S F 18"' Street and bordered
Yry the Cedar Rivcr Pipeline along the �;outhern property boundary and the Mercer island Pipeline
along the eastern property boundary. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the
extension c SE 18th Street through portions of the hufler as rciated with Wetland E. 'I-wo appeal
of a mitigated deennination of nonsignificance ("NIDNS") issui cd under the Washington Staw
Environmental Policy Act ("5EPA") wcre coirl sol i dated with the rcvie - of the preliminary plat, Tlic
Tiilltny Park Woods Advocacy Croup ("Tl'W.{lU) filed erne of the two SEPA appeals and the
applicant mhrnitled the second appeal_ The preliminary plat is approved subject 0) conditions. The
'fl'W. C, SFPA appeal is denied. Thu applicant SEPA appeal is ILtstaincd, in part, The Critical Areas
Fxemption is approved.
26 1 `FPWAG raised numerous issues in its S EPA appeal regarding the coliversion of the 21.66 acre
I' RF 1,T M INA RY Pl.t' AT- 1
2
4
5
h
7
9
10
ll
]2
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
'14
25
26
subject property from a cortununity recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property
is entirely undo—voloped and is covered with trails, tree florts unci ether similar structures that reveal
years of col -rim ll-Ity ll . 111 its SUA appeal TPNNIAC argues that the loss of this long-time
recreational use is an envirotuncntal impact that should be subject to SLPA review. As detailed in
this flee -inion_ the lac( that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (Pr
wonn , the tact that neighbor,4 1nay have trein the past) does not justify the impc3sI- tion oI'ally
SFTIA requi)remexlts because the neighbors will lose that privilege its 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 docs not put the applicant in a
position where it must no,6v continue. to offer that type of vkw to ncighboring properties. With one
exception the applicant propo"es development that i aesthetically similar and colttpatihle with
surrounding l-Lses_ For this reason, there is no legal Mini; for impw�ing. any lurther environivental
rcv-icw• or mitigation too address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining* walls. The
applicant proposes nurncrous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Detaining walls
cif this height are not pre.scttt in the vicinity- and the aesthetic impacts of these structures arc not
similar or compatible to the stTuQLures on lieig:hhoring rropertie.s_ C'onscquetitly, the. MDNS
mitigation tneasures wiII require tcn toot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer
these walls froLtt neighboring uses.
TPWAG alleged more technical environmcntal impacts related to the geotechnical studies,
hazardous materials, drainage; wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide Hazards, seismic
hazards. and retaining walls. The expert le5timony and reports provided by the applicant; ve-rificd by
experts froth the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review. proved to be more e<nnpelling
than the expert test itlnotiy provided by-'1'PWAG. especially when factoring, the substantial weigh( that
rnl-Lst be given the SF -13A responsible officia],s determination that the proposal will not create any
probable signilicant adverse envirolimental il-ripacts_ Onc issue that did require sonic additional
mitigation was hazardous waste. Ali appellant expert testified that the pnior owm-rship of the
property by the U S Department of Defense raised a concern that the property inay wilt in htrzardous,
wasic. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for pvrposes of testing for
hazardous Waste or any other site investigation_ The applicant also aeknowle-dged that it did a Phase
1 hazardous waste environmental rr,=view when it purchased the property, but nevcr o[Tercd the
review into evidence. G1 vein the sumo hai suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of
review will require that the applicant submit its Phase 1 review to staff prior to development, to
verit}. that there is no 11axardous was (e issue WlIll (lie "ite.
The applicant's SF.PA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the city's
MDNS conditions. specifically Condiitiuns 1, 3 and _ At bearing the City and applicant agreed to
revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only con(ested issue in the
applicants appeal. The condition required a 15 -foot landscaping buffer around the entire perime(er
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I (1
11
1?
l;
14
15
1
17
18
19
20
11
2
23
--4
5
26
of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer nccessary, Iilin iLed to areas adioiaingr
proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring, view.
A summary of tesiirnony is aitached as Attaclimeat A. The summate is provided as a conv,onience
and reference to those who would like an oy-crview of the evidence (resented a the lino days of
hearings on ibis applivation. Tllu iesLimouy seclivii should not be coastrued as any formal findings
of fact and also do not re -present What vas determined to be important to the final deciSion
CONTENTS
I- SUMMARY...................................................................................................................
II. TESTIMONY. ... — ... ----------------------.-----.----................................................................... 3
TTLF .I 11BITS..................................................................................................... -----
IV. FINDINGS 01 1:'AC'l............................................. ..................................................... 4
V. C ONC:I. SIO S OF 1:AW................................................................................................ 24
SFPAAPPF.AI............................................................................................................ 24
PRELIMINARY PLAT... .... ----------- ------------ •---- -"---- 30
1. DL.0 ISIO1...... ------------------------- ..--...----.......--.........-- 3
1I. TESTIMONY
f'le4xe see Aila.chinenl A for Leslimony snrrimary
111, EXHIBITS
Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the
hearing are as foo Iowa ;s
Exhibit A : Ciiy oi' Reinton Preliminary Plat C-ondiliom Revision Response (Deceariber 1
2014)
Exhibit AT; TPWAG Poli Bearing (lasing Argument 1)ccember 14, 2014)
Exhibit ALS: TFWAG Motion kale Filing (D€:cenabet I5, 2014)
Exhibit AV: Hcnley Response to TPWAG Motion - irate Filing (December 15; 2015)
Exhibit .' W: 11calcy (Proposed) Order Dcnying 'l"PWAG Motion Late Filing (December 15,
2014)
Exhibit AX. IIearing Examiner fouling— late I-'iIing (De�einhQr 15. 2 14)
Exhibit AY: Ilenley Response — TPWAG Post l [caring Closing Argument (DccembL-.r 1
2014)
Exhibit AZ, HenIcy Rep]y —City oI"Renton Preliminary P1aL Condition Revision response
(December 19, 2014)
Exhibit BB: City of Renton -- Tl? WAC Post Hcaring Closing ArgurrrcnI (Dcccmber 227 2014)
PRF.I.I INARY PT.AT -3
I
Procedural -
2
4
5
6
7
#3
l {1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
4
25
26
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Lp�licant. Henley- i_; SA, 11C,
2. Hearinp,. A eons ;olidatt cd hearing on the preliminary plat application anti SEPA appeals was
held on Noventher 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City ul-Renton Council City
Chambers_ 1 -he rewrd wwi left open for the appellants to provide a SFPA Closing, Argument by
December 1 , 2014, Cite staffvvas also givten kmiil December 1 , 2014 to provide a SHPA Rebuttal.
Cin- staff and the applicant had until December 19. 2014 to proAdo SEPA closing �ircyuniems and
prel i in in at),plait comments.
Substantive:
3. Proj ect. Descri pt i o n and Appeal_
A. Project Uescriptjon, The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the
subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-lamiiy residential lots. Therc is an alternate plat with 96
lots to allok for 30" n tree retention ENhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end col' SF. 1$`1'
Street. Ii is bordered on the s;uulh by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the fiercer Island
Pipe] lin e. Two appeals of a mitigated determination c)f nonsignificance ('M DNS") issued under the
Washinggon State L?nvirontncntal Policy Flet ("SEPA'') wue consolidated with the review of the
prcliminary plat.
'The subject propert�-, consists oI Iour parcels. Tile majority of the site is located in the R-9 zone. A
small portion is located in the R-4 torte. All proposed lots arc located in the R-8 zone_ The proposed
lets would range in size from 4,500sf to 8.456sf. The average. Int size is 5.39%;1. Under either the 96
lot or 97 lot scenarios, density v,ould he equal tO car less 111an 5,70 duelling units per acme. In addition
to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed fir senSii.ive areas. tree retention, storm drainage,
access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot w. id v.egctatcd hutfcr
along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained ITom SE. 18th Street with second'
access extended from 124th Place SE.
The site is currently vacant. with 1,3U5 significant trees_ The applicant has proposed to retain or
mitigate 188 trees In order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirctmcnt. Adequate tree
retention requires {IpproVv it OF the 96- lot alternative. The site slopes gene-ral I -, to the westrncorthwest
at an approximate average slope of 10-1 % with local ixcd slopes nl'25 The site contains three
Category 2 wetlands ('4`etlands A, C, and, D) and t�vo Category 3 wetlattds Wetlands B and L). The
applicant is rcquesting a Critical Arca FxemptiOn iZ)r the extension of Sir 18th Street through
portions ofthe buffer associated with Wedand F.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4
The applicant has submilted a Wetland Report, Drainage Rcrrorl, Traffic Impact Analysis.
Geotechnical i~ngineering study, Ancorrla Report, and Habitat Data Report. lndependem Secondary
studies for Traris portat i on and 1A+etlands are included wi th the application.
3
R, SLPA Appeal- A mi Li gaed determination of -nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the
4 proposal oto September, 2014, `iv o timely appeals of'the threshold cieierminatiOn Were filed by the
5 'Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and C}airncross & 1-leinpelmann on hchalf' cif'
He-ttley USA, LLC,
6
1- Applicant SEPA A peAl, The applicant challenged three of the. City%, MDNS
Qonditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impo,,e unlawful
obligations c the app] icatrt and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat.
9 a. KDN S Condition I - The applicant argued MDiVS Condition 1 should he
10 revi�vd because the condition required eardi ork to comply with an earlier, preliminary
version of the geotechnical report w- hich ha,, Since been superseded, The applicant requested
the SEPA condition be revised to state the e�rthivork shall ho. consistent ,%.ith the final
12 geotechnical report �;ubmitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). Cite staff` and the applicant
then agreed upon the following languige for Condition No. ], which is I-Ound to adequately
13 address pertinent environmental lnlp�iQls,
14 A11 earthwork pe;farmed, ins fc, rn crated by the applicant_ .hall be r:onsislent 4i,iih the
15 rec:ommenelaiions of the gearechnical !'€.'porf, prepared by 4s,soc•iated Larth Sc'ience.s._
Inc., diVed �Seplerr be?, 8, 2012 or consistent � iib the re%-nt emendations of the- final
1 ' C_'itr--alpr oVed geotechnical report -
17
h- MDN -Condition 3. The app] icant Is concerns over MDNS Coin No. 3
is became inoot since the filing oI-Iu5 appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree.
1 upon Q rovised condition Lhat acceptably initigatcs againit environmental imp acts,
0 MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows,
21 The ap lkanr shall be regRired io ?•elain 30 of the slgna lk? rni 1�-ee,s ren sile i ilh
22 exclusions for those tares that aj,e considered dear. diseased, crr dangerous, Wees
located w. ithin 17ral7osed rights-ref=}t°ay, and ire es located within the cr'ilical areas
23 and Me it fv;- v 4Jaled buffers.
4 The applicant initially argued the c-cmdition should either be Struck as a SEPA condition or
25 modified to require oompliance with the Free Cutting and 1:4rid Clearing Plate, completcd by
Washington Forestry Consultants. Inc. (August 277 2014) which complies with the 30%
26 retention requirement {Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 1 ] ).
PRLLL1M (NARY PT. AT - 5
1 0y sWf disagreed. They argued that there. are probable averse environmental impure k that
are being mitigaked by the M]. NS condition. The City argued the M F)N S Condi#ion prc,�-crats
Y the.. applicant from using matagation under RMC 44- 1. 0(H)(I)(e)(i) to replace trees and
} instead requires retention cif significant trees.
4 Tho Trcc Cu(ting; and Land Dearing Plan, completed by Washington FuresL" C,t)nL&Uits,
5 Inc. (August 2.7, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actUally meet the City's
SLPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or
' mitigale 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of
7 the�o trees and mitigate the Inial seven trees. The appIicant's tree retention plan analyzed just
the 96 lot alternative. However_ Mr. &den Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated
R nem field studies performed since 1 -he August 27., 2014 TePOTL NlVe identified additional
i ni licaut ties on-site be ohd inose mapped in the ori final field survey. These trees �viII be
retained, bringing the toLal retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright skated
] it he vas much more confident nova. regarding kite location of trees; their health and which
11 might be viable preserved.
1'- Since the appkant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the. City anti applicant
1 agreed to the Collowhig tree retention language as a condition of approval,
14
15
1lie applicant shall provide a.f nal Tree Reiewion Plan. coa`npp -ing kvA the 30 ove
�veaenlurn mitigation measure xMde clemonstr ling proposed tvalls �voRld not impact
16 lr�,esproposed.for retention. the Fined irrec Retention flan shine he suhrr Wed to, and
17 approved 1 v, the Cvrrenl Planniyag Project _14anager- prior lo con.sli•asclion permit
approval.
18
c. MDNS .Condition 6. MDNS Condition No, 6 remains the only contested
19 portion of the applicants appeal. MDNS Condition iso, 5 as adopted by the S -FTA
20 responsible official required a 15-16ol landscape buffer around the en Lire perimeter of the
development. For the reasons identified in FOI i No. 5, this perime[er has been reduced to terk
21 feet and moat only be placed in area,., to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring
22 vice..
23 2. 1911WAQF_ S EPA Appeal.. '1"1'V4`AC raised ,,eveual issues in its LP appeal; alleging
both inadequate review and .probahlc. signi licant adverse environmental impacts, The
4 impacts i&nLified by Tl'WAC3 are addressed in F OF N c. S.
5
2
PRELIMINARY PIAT - 6
1
3
4
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
4
25
26
4. Surrounding Area.. The subject ,its is surrounding ran all sides by single family reside ntial
development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 IooL wide Cedar River Pipeline- To (lie east, it is
bordered by the 60 lbol. wide Merccr Island Pipeline- Tile zoning surrounding the subjj !QL ou all sides
is single family re�ideiitial (R-8), though there i,, also a small portion of R-4 zolung to the east.
.5. Adverse Impacts. -1-11c proposal &Pes not create :any probable significant advcrsu
c-nvironmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined
in Finding of fact leo. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No, 5, two appeals Ler the threshold were filed -
The issues on appeal from due applicant.. Ilenlcy, arc discussed first.. The issues on appeal liar Lhe
project opponent, the Tiffany Nrk Foods Advocacy (;roup, etre then discussed. Finally, other
impacts not related to eiLhe-r appeal but related to the pre1i3ninaiy plat are discussed bel o4v
A, Applicant SL PA Issue- As identified in FOF No, 3, only one issue remains in the
Applicarit's SF.f'A appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is
determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable
significant cnvironniontal impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to
nonsignificant levels with ten fact sits it obscuring landcaping liarrited to perimeter
areas in front of the rcuiirling Nvalls.
1. Proposed Dcycic rmKre t Aesthetically_- Compatible with SurTounding
Developm int. With the exception of retaining %v ills (addressed separately),
the prop,),, i development does not create any probable significant impacts
because of ae�AhQdc incompatibility with the surmundirl- neighborhood. A
site visit and aerial photographs (F,x, K. .c) reveal that the surrounding
neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed <md Lhat Lhe amount of
trees prolx)�ed for retention by the applicant would Pot be less than
surrounding development. Furthc-r, although the applicant proposes a modest
increase in density, tcLKmable minds would certainly diffir as to whether tills
difference in density- would crcatc a significant aesthetic impact, Thc
developed portions of the plat are Lill ial the R-8 701)e, though the proposed
rc idctrtial density will be 5.7 dwelling tuiits per acre- The Ininlmuni density
requirement in the zone is 4-0 dwelling units per acre. A II adjacent properties
arc zoned R-83 Proposed Iot si/,es would mrigc from 4.500 square feet to 8,456
square feet xvith an ax-•cragc list size of'5399 squfrre feet, v4+hkc the proposed
Iois aplaear to be, on a-veragc, Sonlci hat sinal ler than those of the surrounding
developments, they are not significantly strtaller and are at a density that is
Imver than wvouId othcrwiw he alIowed within this zone. I'urther, because of
the preseriec of the two pipe -lines and the perimeter location or the critical
areas tracts, very Ile%v cif the lots will be directly adjacenL to existing residential
PRF11:1-MINARY PLAT - 7
I
lets. The pipelines do not offer mach in Terms of vegetated screening htti they
do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots, Any difference ill
the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant. especially given the
3
separation of the.. project fi-oAn the surrounding neighborbood.
4
?- Loss-of Trues Not a- Probable Significant Fnvirp nmen4d Impact. It is
5
determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City
code does troi qualify as a probable significant adverse cnv-ironmental impact.
6
In its envir€xnmental rcvicw, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary
7
to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed,
thereby adversely of e-etirig the vjevvs currently enjoyed by neighboring
properties. Numerous adjoining pr€kp�y u,, hers also commented €m this
9
impaiQt. It is determined that the less cel' trees overfed by the afpliean( does not
qualify as a signilicaiw adverse ctivironmental impact. Of course, almost all
10
developmernt of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. els discus d in
I l
CO lac} 5, in order to-justify mitigation bey ond the minimmia standards set by
the City's landscaping code, the pr« jest must involve some fairly unique or
12
sigin i f cant impacts that worc not anticipated in the adoption of that codt!- The
13
existence of such a lark parcel (and lark nunibcr of associated trees:} is
arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the
14
subjectivity involved in aesthetic rcvicwr. {iiven thal [l1e applicant is retaining
15
30% of (he trees, it is debatable tvhe.ihcr the Moss of the other 70% creates a
significant aesthetic vicw impact Lo neighboring property owners; especially
16
with the buffering that w-311 be required by this decision to oNcure retaining
17
walls.
18
The assessment oC aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also
tempered by the fact that it is debatable From a legal standpnint uxhcthcr the
1
applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic
20
benefit it has provided to tic surrounding eurnmunity- The applicant has had
no obligation to retain till € I' the trees on its property' in the past- Surrounding
1
property owners have no entitlement to this currently exi.sting aesthetic
22
benefit- SF:PA only rcquirCS mitigation and analysis of impacts created by
devrelopmuaL The of trees in excess of those required by City cache is not
an impact created by the development, since those trees Qould have been
4
removed at any lune prior to development. The site visit. the record and the
cod do not reveal that any € ther properties !Ti the vicinity have had to retain
25
perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic hctrefit to the
26
surrounding. community. Niven that no such need was Ibund in the past when
I RFLIMMARY PLAT - 8
3
4
7
R
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
-24
25
26
trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat clue-(Ionable
why that is found necessary now in the abwnce of any code provision
expressly requiring such a perimeter_
Rewining Walls Carat. !L Probable Si-gnificat�t Adverse hnvirotuncntal
Impact. It is determined that the retaining 1,valIs proposed by the applicant in
excess of four feet create u probable significant adverse environmental impact_
.els mated in the Stall' Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls tern the
proposed projeci. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Sonne walls are
retai!nitag walls which will face into the site. Thcse are walls that allow fir a
finished grade for a. lot to be blow the surrounding grade- Other walls will be
lock and load wills that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding
grWe. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls_ Thee walls
are visible from outside the site, Stall' notes the applicant has proposed lock
and load walIs ranging in height tiom four feet potentially up to 2l fc-et high.
During testimony. Mr, Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for
reduced retaining vw alI heights.
A site viii to the surrounding neighborhoods uas conducted De-cember 18,
2014, Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements., the,,e
easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line ol- sight into the
de-velopment and t)Cthe retaining wall�;, The site visit demonstrated that high
retaining walls are not a com rnon feature of the sum)unding development, The
applicaut proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in 13ci;ght.
These walls will impact the viev4 of the property from surrounding residenQe�;,
especially given they are an uncomtlion feature in the area, As proposed, the
view from surrounding will be significantly impacted as they
ehunge Jion, forest Quipopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly
two stories tzII in places. The Stale Report notes several wall will be scen by
the public (proposed Lots 407 417 40. 47. 80- 82? $;-90, 93 Kurd 94)'.
V4+hcn considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the
significance ol'the impacts_ Low retairting walls do not block sunlight and air
or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for
1 Tn any discussion of lot auumbers, this decision is referrine to Lhc r1ursrbCTing suhmi . uLilircd in the 97 -clot
:1IteTnative (Exhibit 2)_ The nomenclanire of the 96-1ot a ternativc is uxau ly onc lot lowcr liar each lot because the
Tree Detention Plan recommended [he oIiltairaflljun of Lot l uJ'the 97 k)t aItemative to maintain :30°o tree retention,
PRE LIMTNA Y PLAT- 9
2
7
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
15
16
17
1
19
20
1
22
2i
24
25
26
retaining �%al I, four feet or more in height (R -MC 4-5-060(1`)(2)(O(iv)), This
serve,i as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls iow-cr
than 1bur feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also
tend to be more. commonly Hound in neighhorhoods xince no building permit is
rc:quired, For these rcasons, the findings in the preceding Paragraph on
retaining Vali aesthetic impacts arc limited W retaininL valls over four feet or
more in height. Retaining} walls leis than four feet in height are. not 1owid to
ereate probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
4. Ten Foot PPriarreter Landscaping Fully. Mitigates Retainin;? Wall Lim rets,
The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a
tett fort perinie-Wr landscaping strip- Tht City is recommending a fifteen Pm
bld er of trees. During icstinlorty, the appiicant's arborist stated a ten foot
wide buffer with a staggered double row of coni 1cr,, would create a Very dense
screen in 10 years. ile rioted a 15 foot buffer i, not ,ufTic ient in width to Plant
a third rove of conifers, which would requixe a 30 foot buffer_ The City°s
cxrhoi-ist concluded that at least 35 1ect was necessary #.0 provide likr a site-
ohscturing buffer of tree,, and that tee, ve-rses fifteen feet would not make any
material differs-ncc in screening (Decision Artachnicnt A, page 7)_ Given that
staffs 15 loot rest>n,merldation is countcr to (lie recon,nitmidution of its own
arborist' and that the applicant's arbori t provides a reasonably good
e-xplanation ofhow a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is
determined that the. ten foot hulleTing advocated by the applicant's arborist
will provide a fullv sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls anti as such
l Sraff also advocalcd Jor a 1 �; trot buffer because it v.-ould help rclain some of the treed character of the projoct
site, See Exhibit A1, pagr. l{J_ .FIs outlined in FO N 0.5.A,I- tho appJicani cannot be leg aliv made to conipensato fOr
the loss of trees Lin its property, rurthor, maff also based iris 1 � foot bu17CJ' rU(Juircmcnl upcm RMC: 4-4-wt)(F)(4)(b).
This ll{:1-iTCl4.W[ buflcr provides for aesthetic gcreerii+rg bol-vocn single and multi-famil}- housing. This slalntfard docs
serve a; a gond analogous standard J6r ri taining wall impacts. Unforltmatc.ly, the standard only requires sir foot
high viggk rati oil. A six foot high hedge Sot against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accumpIish a great deal of
aesrhelic mitigation_ For this reason, the RNIC 1-1-070(F)(4)(b) buffer dues not sere as an idOdl analOgOUS-
Iandseaping standard. W hat the RN1C 4-4-070(114)(4)(b) and ulhcr Rh7C 4-4070 perimeter buffer requ ireincnts clots
shnvw is that the City Council Baas untumfortahle requirina more than Ki fifteen loot wide buffer in any situation.
RgUiring mare than 15 feet doe; in frLCI to place an unreagonabfe burden upon thu applicant for something as
subjective as an acsthttic impact_ It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arbt)rist and
onlw required a Jifteon loot buffer instead afa 30 fuUL bull -or. This was an appropriate approach, but dict not go lar
enough since as tesdficd by rhe applicant`s arborist, a fifteen Juot would not provide for any significatit protcction
beyond a ten foot bufl't:r. Given that a -10 toot bi ffer Lvotd i be unreasonable mlti atioa, the Unposition ol'a lcn flint
buffer has to he found acceptable even though thorc• a small chane it may not provide for 100% screening a�
conclrt&d by tho City's arborist,
PRF-1_1MINARY PLAT - 10
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
11
12
13
14
15
I
17
18
19
0
21
22.
23
24
5
26
will prevent the retaining %v,alls from creating probable significant adverse
envIronme-ntal impaetS.
I:imiting the landscape pe.rirnelers to the wrcas where the retaining walls are
[our feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the
vice of nc].Zhboring proper' ov�ncrs. For these reasons, the CotidiLiuns u
approval vvi II require the applicant to reg-ise- its landscaping plan to pro -vide for
site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent it) areas where the retaining
walls are flour or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close
to Lots 40, 41. 46.. 47. 80. 82, 83-90, 93 incl 94.
F3_ '1'PWACa SEPA Issues_
1. Aesthetic Imp tel. Dtie to Loss -of Tre-es. The appellants argue there is a
significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the
exception ofrctaining wally (addressed separately), the proposed development
docs not create any probable significant irnpacAts because of aesthetic
incompatibility %kith the surrounding ricighborhood_ As discussed above in
I-inding of Fact 5.A.l. the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally
wooded or treed and the amount o[' trees proposed for retention by the
applicant would not he less than surrounding development. As described in
Finding of Fact 5.A_i_ the is retaining 30% of the trees_ The applicant has had
no obligation to rctai n all of the trees on its property in the past_ SuiTouPiding
property owns-rs have no entitlement to this curreni[y exis0r7g aesthetic
benefit. The loss of trees in exeess of those required by City coda is not an
impact created by the dcv-c[opment_ since those trees could have been
removed at any Hiroo prior it) &vOopment. It is also at best debatable wbetlher
the loss of the ether 70% creates a significant aesthetic view. impact to
neighboring property owners. especially with the buffo inn, that wiil he
required by this de-cision to ohst;ure retaining vvalls.
. Potcntial__l'rosence 01' Hazardous Materials. leo impacLs from hazardous
niat�--rials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property
had atone time becty ov4 ncd by the Department of Def6nsc. They alleged there
might he ha/ardous materials on site haled on this fiormer user. I -or the. past 65
years, liar all intents and purposcw; the site has been covered by a seemingly
ht!41thy forest canopy-. The appellants vve-re unable to demonstrate evidence of
any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify
overturning the substantial weight duc the bLPA o 1 ieIOs detennination that
I'RFLIMINARY PLAT - l 1
I
the projce-t �;lte does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating Further
environmental review-, However, nor wc-re the appellants gnanted access to
perform their owvn studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase 1
3
F,nvironmental Site Assessment it said was prepared Ior the proposal; even
4
after the appellants made the duely an issue during the hearing. 'Irtre actions of
the applicant. on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whedier the
5
project site is fi-cc frorn hazardous waste_ Gi-veil that this issue remains
6
a13asolved, a condition cif approval will rcgtnre the applicant to subnut the
results of the Phase 'I ESA to City stall" flor confirmation that there w no
7
hazardous materials on site.
8
3. Wjlcl]ife Ilab itat and Coil tecIivity. Ne probahIe significant adverse impar.-ts to
9
wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Rcsponsible Official had
sufficient information to adequately assess the iinpacts. The applicant
1
Submitted a Revised Welland Determination and Response L e-t(ti-r (Exhibit 5),
1
a IIabitat Asscssmenl Exhibit 6), and tvvo IIabitat Asse,sFile nl Tecluiical
NAcniorandums �Fxhibits 16 and 17)- The C iir� NgUil—c-d an iudependent
12
secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion
13
of Law 33 below-, the SKIIA responsible official must diake a prima Cacie
show rig that lie has based his determination upon information reasonably
14
sufficient to evaluule Lite impacts of a Proposal { 'AC; 197-11-335)9 Thesc
15
multiple studies aild memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the
wildlife iinipact of the proposal as the appellants havc not dernonstratcd anv
16
additional information that could haxxe rade anv material difference in the
17
official's conclusions,
18
No Significant advorse itnpacts are anticipated fi
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I (}
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
20
21
?'?
3
24
5
26
lx)th fiIcated woodpeckers and 1'o nsend's hats Over the present situation due
to the Caro} degraded condition ofthc habitat at pre so- nt.
4. Seismic. Iiaz.ards. The SERk ResponsihIe 0Cjic1al had adequate information to
asscss the seismic hazards and no probable sigrilficant adverse impacts are
sinticipatcd in regards to these hazards, As to a&,gUacy of rcvic%v, the
applicant provided a gcotechnical report by ALS (L-xhibit 7) that wa�,
revic,wed, by the. request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions; NW (Exhibit
K.2). The AFS conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the �;itje. from a
geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional
paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical
irnprovemenis in a single family reside-titial subdivis icm, The AES preliminary
gt cotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW
provide. information reusonably sufficient to eva[uate the environmetual
impacts ofthe proposal under WAC 19711-335 _
The appellants note the nearest USGS mapNd fault r{me is 3.9 miles amv,
though they feel additional testing should occur to determine it' there are
unmapped fault zones. The appcllants argued there was evidence of ground
movement in the form of hent trees and huriirnock land wwhich could indicate
several things includiitlg seismic ,41ffling or landslide activity. caused by a
shakow groundwater table, The City has mapped the site as a I.ow Seismic
I lazard arca and outside.. of the C oul Mine I Lazard areas, t he applicant has
providt!d a geotechnical report by ALS that )A. -as reviewed at the 4pplicZI33t1S
request by Earth Solutions, 1V W.. the ftritt hired to per l0mi geoLech WcaI work'
for the applicant going forward. Mr. Co oI-Earth Solutions, I~wW testified
there arc no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page
21). Mr. Cog la-, went ern to Mate with respect to site stability and groundwater.
the stability of the predominantly fiat to -cntly sloping property is good. in his
opinion and based on geologic trapping and suhsizrf ce data for the site and
surnounding area, the site is very similar to the surrOunding developed
residential area. Thea is nothing in the record to hidicate stn increased danger
of seismic hayAyd heyond that of the surrounding properties. A sin le -family
residential plat in this arca is in 110 FI10rc prObahle ,tismic clanger than the
surrounding dcvclopcd properties. 'Irtic propos l will not create any probable
significant adverse cn,,,ironmental impacts its ire pirds to seisinie hazards.
5. Landslide Hazards. The S>~PA Respoi sible C}l'fic:ial had adequate information
to assess lands Iide'hazards_ They appellants argued the soil under the plat h<�s
PRLLLIMINARY PIAT - 13
1
structural anomalies that require further study to determinc if there erre
iandslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to
bent trees and uneven surfaces located vin the site may indicate shallow. or
3
slightly deeper ground movement whicl, may be indicatiom., of landslide
4
{activity in the, past or Future propensity of slides- They note they requested
access it) perforin their own �ttidies but were denied. Specifically, the
5
appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more.. test
6
pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity-, els nested {above,
the applicant has provided a. geotechnical report by ASS that v�-as reviV,%w i by
7
Earth So] Litiom, NW. Mr. C'oglas o C Furth Solutions, N W testi f ted there are no
landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Pa�,e 70). The.
S
Uty's Development Lngine-ening Vanager. Mr. Lee, testified he concurred
%vith Mr. C:oglas' assessment of the landc;I e hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a
professional engineer with extensive experience in site developmcnt and civil
10
engineering in Washington. Hi troted, the steep areas are very 'Small (15-20'
11
lees lonLO and do not warrant slope stability analysis, Overall on the protect
12
site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There: are no sensitive or
protected slopes on the subject property. The rnajnrity of the subject site.. has
13
less than 15 percent �;Iopes. There are a feu area,., kith slopes of 15 percent to
35 percent- These areas are characterized Las Medium Landslide. Hazard areas.
14
r. Lee stated the City code dares no( require additional slope stability
15
aualvsis for these arcas-
1£
The. appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were,
17
insuff icient to evaluatc slope stability, Mr. Lee testified there were stiff icient
numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement ITorn groundwater
18
on site. l.lc would have preferred to sec a fcw more, especially in the vault
19
area, Howcvcr, as Mr- Coghis testified. the City nay require extra analysim
during fillai cngineering. as the design is finalized. I le Mated he does nut
0
typically require additional geo[cc linical analysis at this stage of the process.
.� 1
4
r- Lee felt the int6miation provided was adequate Lo sallow for a
dcterrriinaLion of impact on the site (See Dec;i pion Attachment AL. Page 2.4).
2
Mr. Lec's objectivity as a stall creaployce and his engineering c pMise are
dcterminafi a on the slops. stahility issue. Ilc clearly rev,e"ked the
4
gc-atccfinical reports in detail and 16vild no need for further investigation or
additional uiforma#ion. 1 -lie findings of the geotechnical analysis are also
25
compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do
26
not raise any apparent cause for concern. For Lhese reasons.. it is concluded
P R F 1 -.1 M IN ARY PL L"1" - 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
l {1
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
0
21
22
n�
4
25
26
that the SOPA respoiisihle official had reasonably adequate iiirbTm.afton to
assess the. slope stability of the pro.jcct site,
6. Groundwater. -Me SFPA Responsible [official had rezisomibly adequate
information it) assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable
significant €►dvcrse groundwater impacts tisgcciated with the proposal. The
appellants argued there was insufficient study+ c,f the groundwater situation on
site and the, potential affect grourdwater might have on developtncrni_ They
note they requested ac es to perforin their our studies but were. denied.
Specifically, the) appellants have requested exfandcd soils LeAt;. percolation
tests. and more test pits and borings to measure localizred hydraulic
conductivity, The applicant provided a gcotcchnical report (Fxhibi! 7), a peer
review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit ,2)t a wetlands report and a
revised we-datrds report (Exhibit 5)t and a drainage report (Exhibit $), The
� eilandi; reports were independently revic1A.,cd hy+ Otak (Exhibit's 14 and 15).
The City's Devcloptment L?ngince-r; Mr_ I.ee gated the applicant had provided
a sufficient number of test pits it) gauge impacts of potential groundw-ater on
site (Decision Attachment A. page 24)_ Givtm the extensive information
provided and the peer review, the applicmt. has provided information
sufficient for the SF.PA Responsible Official to issue a threshold
detc1m) in ati o n with re,,pec[ to gound wawr impacts.
There are no antic pated adve-rsc iirrpacis related to the giv and water table. ` fic
appe-11ants argue groundw-wer saturation levels at this site make it
undtivelopahle_ They point to the ALS gootcOmical report (E:xhibit 7), the
Shultz wvLland� repor-t (.Exhibit 5). the Technical Information Report by
Flarghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (i~xhihii.,; 14 and 15) as all
demonstrating the groundwater uthle is at or within seven inches of the surface
in all weaand areas. Ground aLer near the surface is defining foaturc of
Wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat conimir
throughout the project Lite and, as a consequence of a high water table, %,vator
intrtLsiOtt ill disrupL or prt vent proper installation of utilities, loundatiOn
drains raid the stortnwatcr vault.
The applicant's gcotechnic-J engineer, Ray Coglas. testified there is perched
groun&�-atcr on the rile, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. t.cc concurred
with curing testimony (Decision Artacl moat A, pagcw 22 and 25,
respectivOy'), if the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all
over the site; the whole site would he underwater because of the varying
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 {1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
19
20
l
22
2�
4
25
6
topography, x hick is of course. not the case, Iife stated perched waters trapped
b� impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain mvay wkn
cuts are made to hillsides. The water ALS encountered was seepage from
perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision llttachrnent
A, page 22)_ Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and suited they showed
no caring or seepage- which would indicate weakness to the. soils, uir s -i gnificant
groundwawr at or near tfic surface otit5ide of wetland areas_ He stated though
there will be sonic groundwater seepage.. he docs not expect the site will
require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES Cound no grounds water in its
test pits. Mr_ Coglas stated even if the appellants € re correct and that
groundwater 15 at zero elevation. it could be managed Without damaging the
fcasibiliry t)f rhe project, Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement_
!1+'fr_ (:oglas noted the scrip at the subject are not unique Lo this subject. The
entire subject is surrounded by existing devclopment al a similar intensity to
the proposed development on similar topognaphy and soils. Therc is no
indication i'ro n the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities;
infrastructure or house foundations in the surrorniding neighborhoods hove
failed due icy perched groundwater or a high water tabic. Nlr. C oglas noted the
presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management
practices are followed.
Giv-cn Mr. I:ee's concurrence in the opinion o1' Mr_ C oglas and the substantial
wv,ight required of the findirtgs of' the SEPA responsible.: offkiaL it is
determined that the proposal wi11 not create. any probable significant adverse
47rounrl���ater impacts.
7_ Downstrea-m Impacts. The SEP Responsible Oficial has information
reasonabiy sufficient to cVal Uatc thy; clowin streani imp;7.cts of the proposal. The
City required a Level I downstrearn analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow
Control (F,xhibiI A. page, 3 1 ) will restrict the 11 ow of the 2 -year release. rate to
50% of the pre.. -developed site conditions. which will help to reduce an
existing drainaSc issue_ Mr, Lee stated the City is uncertaitl of a segment Of
the pipeline that takes rhe water downstream of the project site and have
the.rtAre requested a Level 2 downstream �aial}psis to be performed prior to
building permit approval_ They want to mala sure the project will not
exacerbate existing downstrearn flooding issues. An NPDF.S permit will bc
required for the project. which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the.
conveyance. ,y,,tem {Decision Attachruent A, Page 25), The City additionally.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16
7
4
6
7
8
9
I (}
11
13
]4
15
16
17
1$
19
20
21
22
3
-r4
25
6
established a SFPA 1771tigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream
analysis 11or '/4 mile fi-om the project site. All of the requirements must be met
hcCore a building permit or construction pemiiits are issued. With these
condlLion s in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage
of review to evaluate dowa stream impacts.
R_ Disc harge.__uito Wetlands_ The proposed discharge of roof run-oll' into
wetlands will not crease a probable significant adverse environniewJ impact.
'l'he detailed local; state and federal standards applicable to �;tcrnx;water run-off
are det'erminat'ive on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed
draiiiage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse
impacls, The appellants assert that the propu� ;ed roof run-off into wetlands is
in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King
County Surf'4cc Water Drainage Manual spccifically excludes drainage: from
root's (except untreated metal ree'l's) from consideration as pollution
generating sources (Exhibit AF)_ The appellants have not providod any
citation or court opinion that roof run oEf discharge constitutes a violauon oI'
any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent ffom the reading
of the Clean Water Act_ Mr_ Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant,
noted that disehargc ref' clean or non -point source polluted stormwater into
wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the
wetlands. [1vTr_ 1." staled the applicant had complied � ith all city, state �md
federal code requirements with respect to stromwater_ Mr_ T,ee testified the
codes are ,ul'f icient to address all probable sto mwater impacts_ TIe further
noted a NationO Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be
required for the project, which will ensure that no ,tori-nwater pollutants arc
released into wetlands or grounds ater_ The permit will include background
and discharge Monitoring. No bLillding permit or comtruction permits will be
issued until this NPDES condition% are met, Since the proposed storinivatcr
discharge i�; consistent with all applicable regulations, i5 a s andard practice
likr development and also meets the approval ofstaff, it is determined that the
proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable sigmilicant
adverse cnvirormiental impacts, -
9. Air Quality- No -�;i&fnificant adverse: impacts to air quality are anticap�Ated.
During the coirlstruction phase of the project, the -re wiI I be exhaust from trucks
and heavy equipmcnt. 11owever, after the eons ;(ruction phase is over, the
subdivision will function similarly to the surrounduig development "ith
respect to emissions and air gtLality issues, The proposed development is
PRF1,i&ilNAi Y PLAT- 17
1 f u ctionall - the game as the existing development pallern. Nothing in the
record indicate,, there will be significant adverse impacts w-ith respcct to air
quality.
C- Other Impacts Related to the Prelimillary Plat:
5
1. Wctland�;, As proposed and conditioned; the proposal will not create any
-
signi f.icant adverse impacts to wetlands- There are five wetlands on site. Three
6 of the wetlands are Category ? the others arc Category II.I. The applicant
7 submitted a Wetland Dctcrmination, prepared hy C. Gary Schulz. Inc,
(0clober 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to
8 revisions to the plat ineIading the use of a draj napx vauIt, instead oaf a drair1age
9
detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portiokls of the
site perimeter (FebruaTy 28. 2014)-
10
11 F3ased on public comments (See Lxhihit 1096). staff requircd an evaluation by.
an independent qualified professional regardiw the applicant's wetland
12 analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating mcasuros-- On April
3, 2014 an indelxndent secondary wetland review vas provided to the City by
13 (utak (Exhibit A. Attachnic-nt 14)- Following the: completion of
14 reoomincndation�; in the (utak memo. the applicant submitted a Revised
4 etland De-temiination and Rcspomse (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment
1 5).
1
At the ]gearing., rncnibers 09 the public e lrres�ed concern regarding, the
17 protection of wetlands and wildlife Habitat. There was specific concern
1g regarding removal of trees and wetland hydi-ology. During testimonv, Ms.
Villa of Sound��iew Consultant-, stated she was hired b the applicant to
1 perf'onn supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat, Ln her
0 study, she found ink) state or federally listen or protected specie -s on the site.
5ho noted tke habitat is Ittirly disturbed now %vith evidence of a lot of human
1 inlim%lon- Tri her opinion, protection of the wctlands and habitats with proper
22 fencing and si �T. age, would result in hetter proWction for the habitat than exists
currently,
3
4 The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary l cview enticluded water
quality, xctland hydrologic function end flood storage will he protected. The.
2 applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(k1)(6#))- The
26 butler averaging, plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from.
PRELIMINAR i}1.A - 18
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
1z7,
16
17
Is
19
0
2.1
22
23
4
2
2
1.6:1.0 to 9.5: I _f}_ Wetlands A.. B. C., and l) would have buffer areas
Mgniiicantiy greater following the hufler averaging proposal. llo��,-cver, slaIT
are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate hullli"ring
on die north and cast side,, «I' etlauds 13 and C to talcs into aecoual the
proposed "lock & load A-Als'' in those locations, The applicant will be
required to submit a Final Mitigation Plant (RMC 4-5-120(W)) demonstrating
appropriate mitigation for all wetland,, and buf'f'er impacts prior to permit
approval.
The applicant has requested a critical areas cxcnnptinn allowing a permanent
bcITcr impact to 14sf of the Wetland L huller. The exemption 1 ould allow the
applicant to ccrnsiruct the rewired full street improven,eitls at SE l `I' Street
(RMC 4-6-060). This area (19sf) has already bean impacted by past
infrastructure c:onstruc[lon, Staff recommends approval of the critical {ureas
exempt ion with mitigation for the irnpact .
The critical areas on site have a total arca of 118,494 square lees X2,72 acres)
and would he lucafcd in (Tr�ic(s B, G, K. & M). The applicant is propn�ing to
increase wetland hufyer�, which would result in a total native open s -pace used
to preserve nafive forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4,02
acres). As conditioned. no impacts to wetland habitat are an hclpated_
Given the e x tern�;ive review 0f k-%--ct1and Impacts; staffs review and approval of
wv11und mitigation. and the applicant's comp] IanQt! with all applicable weland
regulations, it is aOnclLided ilial the proposal will not create ans, adverse
impacts to wetlands.
2_ Tree Retention-Rcquired. The } rt po,,al provides for adequate trcc retention
betiause it uuriiplics }t-ith Lbu City,s free relention standards, RMC; 4-4-130(C).
The applicant submiae-d Dyer versl.oils of the preliminary plat application. The
first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree
rdention_ The second plat alternative is a 96 -lot rTeliminary lrlal that achiev-cs
30% significant tree reLention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection
Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96 -lent a]Lernative implements the applicant's tree
retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SFPA mitigation
me<nsure requiting 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and
is the design approved by this decision, If the applicant was still inteilding to
pursue a 97 -lot de%Wl:, it should request reconsideration.
PR LlMlNARY PIAT- 19
I No Aler significant impacts are re sonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the
administrative record.
3 6. Adequacy of infrastructurc/public Serv+ic�s. The project will he served �y adequate
infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has, been
review -ed by the City's Public Works DepartmeRit and found to be suf'titicnt, pccif'iu
5 infrastructttrcl,-en-ices are. addressed as follow ;:
6 A. Water and Servet' Scryiec. This site is locawd in the City of Renton water service
7 boundary. There is an existing 8 -inch water main stubbed to the sits: in SE 20'1' C.04a11, in
SE 19u' Court and SF. I 81 Court. Thi,. site is located in the 59{}-v�`ater pressure zone -
8 Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-$2. psi, The site ix located in the City of'Renton
9 sever service arca. `there is an 8 -inch seiner main in SF. 18`h Street.
10 B, Poliec and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention stuff's indicate that sullicient
1 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed dcvelopn,ernc; subject to the provision
of Code required improvements and fees_ A Fine Impact Fee; based on acw• single faklid '
12 lots; will be required in order to rnitigate the proposal's potential impacts Lo Cir'v
13 cttlergency services_ The lee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Murticipal
Code. Currently- the lee is assessed at 5479.28 per single family residence_ This fee is
14 paid at time of huildirxg permit issuance,
IS
C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainggc facilities. In order
16 to address concerns raised by staff, as recotmncnded by them a condition of approval
17 require -s a Level 2 downstream analysis for ;,� mile from the prixiect rile to determine it -
the proposed project would exacerbatc existing downstrcarn capacity issues_ The
18 app icant submitted a Prt lzminary Drainage Report prepart cd by Barghauscn, elated
19 Fehruary 24, 2014 (Exlhihit 8). Stall' has determined that the preliminury Plan is
consistent vvith the 2009 King. Count}' Surfacc Water Manual and City of Renton
20 Amendments to the KCSWNI., Chapters 1 and 2_ Full compliance with the Manual will
'2 �
be required duril cno-inc ring review.
22 D Parks/Open Spacc. The proposal is consistent with adapted parks and open space
23 standards abet, therefore.. Provides for adequate pans and open space. R_\4C 4-2-115.
which governs open space requirements f«r residential development, does not have any.
24 specifc requirements liar open space 16r residential development in the R-8 district,
25 However. the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive acrd active open
spat :e. in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision.
26
PRIA,I M INARY PLAT - 20
1 The applicant will Kdso be require to pay park impact f" ee prior to building permit issuace
to ensure that the development. pays its fair share O' systeni wide park improvements.
F- Streets, he propo,.,al, as conditioned. provides for adi--cluale streets and a„sOciiated
4 infrastructure, The applicant is proposing two pckints of ingress and egress into the plat;
SE 18th SL 4nd 124th Place SF.. The priinary neighborhood streets would serve
5 }project traffic include 116']' Aveinue SLS.. 126”' Avtmue SE, SL 168" Street, SE Petrevitsky
6 Road, S. Pugct Drive, and 10S`h Avenue. SF.-Renson Road S. The project site, is cur-ently
served by King Co Metro Route 148 with Routcs 102 and 155 also operating within
7 the vicinity t)f' the subject site. The nearest transit strip 1i,)r Route. 148 is located on Lake
Youngs Drive SE and 1 ? �`d
R Averttle SE.
9 StalTreceiv.ed comments fro in interested parties with respect to trailic spec ificaIN related
10 to the need for addibond analysis, trip generation, lack of public: tray it, leve,] of service.
sight distance, the Edmonds Avcnue SF/SE 16`h Stree t-F.dnnonds Way SL inti}r�eclic}n,
11 the use. of speed humps for traffic calming, stop signs, zind traffic impact lees
�:'xhibit l0).
12
13 The applicant submitted a Traf lc impact Analysis (191A) prepared by Transl-x)Croup.
uired an evaluation by 1
(--November, 2 13) as part Athe original submittal. Basal on public comments received,
14 staff re an inde endcnt c ualilieci
Q p professional rqairding the
15 applicanfs transporuition analysis and the eflectiveness of any propo-ped initigating
measures. The TIT concludes dial all affected intersections will continue. to operate at an
� ' acceptable level of wrvice, except the, into-rsection of Benson Drive. S/S Puget Drive.
17 which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed projec-t. The addition of
AN4 peak hour project traffic would add approxiinately five seconds 09 average delay to
1 this intersection, Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not jus,619y
19 add itiotial rnitisalion and the reduction in LOS will not violate, the City's adopted lcvcl of
service. 1lie applicant will be rcquired to pay traffic impact lees prior to issuance cif"
(} building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic iifitpacts
1 created by the propoml-
2 The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southhound motorists on Morircke
3 Avenue SE approaching SE 18`h Street due w the roadway. geometric5 Kurd existing
24 obstructions (farce unci on-strcet vehicle parkirkg). The site distance issue was remedied
by an M DNS condition that requires the applicant to install a wtop sign.
?5
6
PRFLIMI RY PLAT- 21
Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) w.as a recommendation for
PKI"LI DIARY PLAT- 22
sight distance analysis at the 120 Place SF, and SL 158 Street intersection_ The report
identifies this intersection as a possihle sight distance concem. Given the. provided Tl
}
does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SFf'A mitigation
4
measure vas issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TI including an analysis of
the 120' Place SF, and SU 158"' Street intersection sight distzace and rccornmeud
5
appropriate midg.<ition if needed (Fxhlbit 22). Site distances at all other study
intcrsect[ons were deemed adequate with the execlition of Beacon WaY SF. at SE 16th
Street -
7
8
The vertical curve ref SF 16'`' Strcct prc-,ents a visibility concern, A crest vertical curVt!
obstructs sight distance inhere SE 16'x` Street crosses Beacon Way- SE especially il` car
9
speeds exceed posted spccd limit signage. Thcrc are existing suns (Steep Hill. Slippery.
10
When We-(; Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16'11 Street northeast of Hcaccn Way S1?
which help to calm existing traffic at this interst caion, Approximately 0% of the
11
project's trips are anticipated to utilize this Intersection, Thcreforc. the FRS' issued a
SEPA mi6g.4tion measure; requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for
] 2
a CROSSROAD (W2-1 syrnhol) with a 15 PH advisory spccd on the southwest
13
d1rectional approach to Beacon Way. SL, along the north side of S1: 16'`' Street (east of
Beacon Way SLS;) (Exhibit 22). The LTC: issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this
1
intersection to rcdUce. cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional
15
information signage (white letters on green background) at S, Puget Drive and 1 1 C'a'
Avenue SL facing west (Exhibit 22). The sighs are required to read "TIFFAN Y PARK
l'
with a left arrow and -`C�A (:'ALCM_." with a ri jlit arrow.
17
Several public: ccnruncnts requested the use of speed #pumps as a traffic cali-ning measure
18
along SF 16,h Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and
19
spin out conceras WhIU11 WOUld ht aggravated by Lral7ic generated by the proposal. The
City dere, not support the use of sp(-,cd bumps on public streets. Spc�.d humps are not
desired due to noise., excessive speeds betivc-cu. installations (so drivers can make up
.1
time), and result in a reduction in response timc of public ,arety vchicics such as fire
engines. and aid car,_
22
23
Several public cominents requested internal pedcsirian connectivity, contlectiorns to
ne.ighlx)ring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park F.lementa.t-y,
24
an d the crossing at SQL 16th 9 ( and Edmonds Way SF, intersection (see F.xhibi1. 10.22). N0
5
Ih)ntage iinprovcmcn1, are required on adjac.eul street frontage_ Tle internal public
streets have been proposed with a riAt-of-�vay w.Ah ref 53 l'eei which meets the Ciky's
26
PKI"LI DIARY PLAT- 22
2
4
5
6
7
8
I [1
11
12
1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
24
25
26
cotnplete street requirements !or residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 fcct_ 0.5
foot widc curbs, 8 Foot wide Iand scapcd planters (on both sides 0Fthe street), 5 foot wide
sidewalks (on both sides of the street). drainage improvements, wind street lighting are.
required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring
developments incl an aburtine pipeline via Tracts C and E.
City staff evaluated the intersection of Fdinonds Avcnuc S) 'SF. 16`x` Street -Edmonds
Way SF. Nvith respect to fcdestriae irnpro�ements in 1� 96, 2005 and main in 2007 and
determined that crossvw�alks were not warranted at this location. The additional
dei-clopment trafl1c wiII not exceed the threshold to warrant installation o F a ctosswvalk at
this location.
As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not cxcccd six dwelling units per
acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access.
Several public comments deall with construction traffic Exhibit 10.30). The.
developer will be ruquircd to comply with the Rcnton Municipal Cade for haul fours,
cun.�;truction hours. and noise lt! els. A final Traffic Control flan complying with the
Renton Municipal Cods will be required to be submitted and approved prior to
construction.
F. Paticin_ Suflicient arca exists, on cach lot_ to accommodate required off street parkin
for a minimum oI-two vehicles per dwelling unii as required by City code.
(i_ Schools_ The Renton School District anticipates it cavi accommodate any additional
,'w ems generated by this propo,,al aL 1he following schools. Tiffany Park Elementary.
0.4 miles frons Ihe. subject site). Nelson MiddIc School ( I.7 nil Ie's from the subject siiti
and Lind bcrg High Sc pool (0-9 mi les from t1ic stibjccL site). R 59_ 17 - T 10(2) provides
that no subdi -inion be approved without making a wvriiten finding of adequate provisions
for safe walking c-ondiiions for students who walk to and IToiii school and/or bus stops.
Tiffany Park Llcinentary and Lindberg high School are within %valkin disWece of the
subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to h -L, transpoi-Led
to school via bus.
As part of the proposed project. sidewalks w -ould be constructed along on-site roadways
which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions ror
safe walking coin ditions for students w. ho walk it) and thorn school and.. -'or bus stop,,.
PRF.i.1MINARY PLAT - --)3
1
2
7
4
5
6
7
8
9
l {}
1l
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
3
4
1-5
26
idewalks would provide a route bmmeen the project site Enid nearhy `I'-IMM}� Park
Elementary School, including. available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue
SF/Lak-e Youngs Way intcN"(icm. The Kirkland A,enuc SFJi.ake Youngs- % ay
intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from , hcrc SF. 18th St intersects Lake
Youngs Way. Given Ifie nunibcr c)fhomes proposed; it is very likely that a lar e influx of
-,ludunls would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SF., at the SL 181" Street intersection,
whxclx docs not currently havc a marked crosswalk_ in outer to Provide a niore prackal
safe route it) Ti�'fmy Park Eleme-ntaiy ftom the project site, a SEPA miticadon measure
was issued requiring the apphQant provide a marked crosswalk at the interse-etion of SE
18"' Street and Lake Youngs Way.
No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently kindeveloped. T11k� Renton
School District w-111 be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students
who will he aitentling nelson Middle School.
School Impact ] cc, based on neve single.-1amily lots, will also be requirccl in order to
Mitigate the ploposal's pots-ndal impacts to Renton School District_ The fee is payable to
the City. ai ,pecitied by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building }permit
application_ Currently the. lee is assessed at $ ,455.00 per single Camily residence and
would increase to 55,541.00 on January 1, '2015,
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Authority. RMC 4-7,020(0) and 4-7-050(L)}(5) provide that the Hearing Examinor shah
held a hearing and issue a final decisioll on prciinlinary plat applications. R IC 4-9-070 R) and
RMC 4-8-11 O(A)(2) grant the F arniner authority to review and iniake final dceisiorn, orx SEPA
appeals,
2. onin !C'onipr hensivc Plan T)esi nations. The ir�ajorit' of the subject property is xcmed
residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R -fit). A small portion of the subject property is zoned
Residential 4 dwel link, units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion oI' the propertY is proposed for
residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Rcsidcntlal Single
family' (RSF) and Residentiai 1, ow Density {R1,D),
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24
SEPA APPEAI,
1
2
7
4
5
6
7
8
9
1�
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
1$
19
0
21
22
23
24
15
26
3. Re Standard, There arc two reasons a DMS can be overturned to overturncd: (1) there are
unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts: or (?) the SEPA responsible official
has not undcrwken an adequate review- of cnvironmental factors. Hach grounds for revkmg11 will be
separately addressed he -low,
A. Probable Significant Ad,.'orse Envinminw.tatal lm acts.
The Primary relevant inquiry for purposes o l' assessing whether County- staff correctly issued a DNS
is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC: 197-
1 1-3 330(1)(b). WAC 197-11-782 dcAne,, "probablc" as fol lt)ws:
`T'robr ble' means likely or reasonab4- likely to occur. as in 'a reasonable _prohab 114refmure
Man a »:oc erase e [� c i an the l c rlf ly qf1hC c ra v rorr rr r7! ` 197_ P l - -94), 1'ro . hle i.y
used to di_s'lingidsh likely Mom that merely have a possibifit.y c f occu�r�ta , huf
aAll remole or .specdaflve. I his is nerd meant a_S a _siriel st afsOcal probability fest,
if' such impacts are created, conditi(m,, will have to he added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there
are no pr table significant adversc e-nvjronmeritR1 impacts_ in the alternative, an environinental
impact statement �voruld be required four the project. In ai,�essing the validity c)l' a threshold
delerinination, the determination made by the Ciry-s S1 IA responsible official shall be entitled to
substantial weight- WAC: 147-11-680(3)(a.)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed
under the clearly erroneous standard. Linder the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the
SEPA rcspoivl ible official can only be overturned i(; after reviewing the entire record, the decision
maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC- 4-8-1 10-
C (12)(h)(v)_ The procedural deterirunation by the F.nvinorunental Rcvi4 u Committee or City ,taff
shall carry substantial w6ght in any. appal proceeding. RN-JC4-11;-110(E)(12)(a).
B. Ad.cguate Hnvirorunental Devic".
The second reason. a I}N can be overtilrlled is if the SEPA responsible official slid not adequately
rcview environmental impac;is in reaching his threshold determination, The SEPA responsible official
ll-kust make a prima facie shoeing that he has based his determination upon inibrmatl{}n reasonably
sufficient to evaluate Lhe impacts of prormsal_ WAC 197 -11 -335-
C.
97 -11-335_
C. No Grounds for all i1S.
l'YWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SF,PA mitigation, e-nvii.ronniental review or the
issuance of an crivironmental impact statemen .t. All of the groun& far SEPA appal are addressed in
Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the, impacts idewitied by TPWAG
qualify as probable significant adverse environlnc-mal impacts and TPWAG has not identified an
PRF:1.i14INARY PLAT - 25
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
0
21
22
23
?4
25
26
impact for �,khich the SFITA responsible official did not ha�-e sufficient infonn4tion to reasonahly
I assess impacts_
U. Perimeter i:andscaping
MDNS Condition No. 6 is modified it) only require 10 foot JV irneter landscaping along the reiainin'a
walls that are over four feet in ]lei gliL_ specifically in proxirniiy to lots 40, 41. 46, 47, 8 0, $2, 83-90,
93 and 94.
The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards
do not require buffering, and that those standards-„hould be determinative in assessing the need for
landscaping_ The applican( is correct up to a point. RCV4+ 36.7013.030(3) and RC 43.21 C -240(2)(()
docs allow a city to use its dei-Oopment standards as the exclusive source of n,itig►{ftioii for
environmental impacts. However. RCW 43,21C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development
regulations in this manner the City must make a dctcrmination in the course ofpermit reviews that the
development standards in question arc adequately addressed by tho development regulations. R('W
43.210.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to he 161,pnd to adequately mitigate
impacts. imposition cif the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacis or the legislative body
of the city has deten„ined that the dcvclopmct,i stand rd sets acceptable levels o l' impact.
Renton"s landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the acsthe-ac impacts created by the
proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a developitrent standard can be found to
adequately address impacts is if the Cite Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of
impact. Sec RC W 43,21C.240(4)(b).Thc Renton City Council expresdy determined that the
landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic i airacx., stating the purpose clause o1`
the landscaping standards that "it is not the iia eni ofrhose regulations that rigid and inflexible rle.sign
standards he imposed. bur rather that m inimijm slandar ds be set."
The other, tnckre difficult issue involved in LLwcerttining whothcr the landscaping standards would
adequately addreis aesthetic impacts is 11” the sLand irds actually iniiigatc the impacts. Given the
suhjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts. one would have to conclude that in the vast m jo ity of
typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any
perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential Wieli; the City Council must
have determined that fi
I tvitigaion through SEPA is well jtuAfiv_d in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining
.) walls.
3 The City's en lronmcntal report also cites that buffering is nccc,,sary to off-sct the impacts of tl,c
densities of the proposal, which are higher than ;;adjoining dunmties. This docs not serve as an
adequiate justification for buffering. Se=tting z threshold for adverse acstheiie impacts based upon a
5 dilference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the ah -once of any legislative!
gul&ncc. The dill' rence in density between the proposal and adjoining rises is not so high that
6 reasonable rninds would shard the same upinion as to �%.hether the difference, is aesthetically adverse,
7 Though both the surrounding ureas 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 ofthe project,
di,ff'erences in residential densities are _ co nething that one would reasonably anticipate the Council
9 would have considered in adopting its landscaping. standards, and it adopted no pea-irneter
rcquiremertts betuw-ccn residential zoning districts with different densities, except as beL een multi -
l0 family and less into-nse residential uses. For these reasons. tits comparatively higher density of the
1 I proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environrrment<tl impact.
12 Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the Cihr has adopted a
SI -TA policy that rcquires then impact too be addressed, RC W 43.2 ] C7-00 l requires that SFPA
1 mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local govcrnmctrt aubority. lntcrestingly, the
] 4 Cite hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purposes clause of
15 they landscaping regul ati tin s, which promote aesthetic compatihiIity, can't be used. ThereThereare plenty of
other SF PA policies that proinote aesthetic curnpaLibiIit . RMC 4-2-070(N4) (2)(ii) provide ihaL one, of
16 the goals of SL1'A review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive..
plan is another adopted LPA policy. One of its community design goals is to) '`raise the aesthetic.
1 quality ofthe city". Objective CD-
M recognizes that well desiened landscaphig provides aesthetic
IS appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, cconom y and general wc1fare til-tbe
aommunity. Policy CD -8 pivvides that street trees and landlscaping should be required for new
t dCW,lopment to provide an attractive streetscapc. in areas suh.je=cted to a transition of land uses. AH of
20 those policies are serval by the periincter landscapingrequired by this decision. since such
landscaping will raise the aesthetic qu�ility of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against
I the transition from the higher density` residential devclopment and its associated retaining ulJs to the:
22 lower surrounding residential densities.
23 The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be urn-easonablc
24 because. hornes would lose yard ,paQe. In the altcrnativtc, of course, the applicant may have to lose
gorge lots. Given the judicial com truction of "reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss
5 of a rtew lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable.
2
PRL:LIMINARY PLAT- - 27
I As a final matter, S V P A mitigation can onIy be used to itr pose mitigation against probable signifiearl t
2 adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Yac-t Nu- 5, the solid walls created
by the higher portions of the retaining wall casily qualify. No reasonable minds could dilTer on the
3 opinion that high rctaining walls are at odds wiLh the general design of the community and create a
4 mass of rock or concrete wall that is aes[hetically adverse- The remaining issue is how high the wall
should be to tau considered adverse. Again, reference it) exi�aingr codes is useful as it provides ail
5 objective and consi5telnt standard for application. Re -tainting Falls fewer than lonjr feet in hcight der
6 not require building permit review- Consequently, it can be reasonably arrkipated that dcc-orative
retaining w4lls under four feet may not be that atrcornmon, w-hereas property owners will only go
7 through the time acid expense ol'building permit review for higher � alls when they arc necessitated
for stability as opposed to decoraiive purposes. A firur feet height is also still lows- enough to retui;i the
views of ;urrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features, For this reason, these
q portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject (o the 15
loot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS-
10
11 11". Rtuinint, Wall Height -
12 The six-foot rct<tmmg N alI height Iiadtali on recommender) by slaf'f will not be adopted, Denton docs
not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of sethack areas. There is
1 nothing in the record that establishes the potential ror any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and
14 those impacts vi11 be adequately addressed by the staf'l's recommcnded Iandscape perimeter.
15 The re-t,aining walI condition presents tun code interpretation i%SU CS, (1) whether the City's fence and
1 hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining � alls, acid (2) if IMC 10-4-040 docs apply,
� hether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining, walls. As to the first. issue, RMC 10-4-040
17 probably docs apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(,1) provides that the purpose. of RMC 4-4-050
Is is to regulate thte material and hcight of'``fences and hedges." -`Fence" is not defined in the PUMA..
11ow•e'ver, walls are addressed throughout RMC: 4-4-040, Most pertinent. RMC 4-4-04o(c)(1)
19 provides In relevant part that, ."in crises where a wall iii used instead of a fence. height shall be
0 measured from the top surface of the wall to tic ground on the high side of the wall-" This sentence
stroligl suegcst, that the wall in questic>n can include retaining walls, since the sentence
21 acknowledo-es that one side of the w -all can be at a higher 4prade than the other. Retaining. Toialls that
22 projecI above the higher grade would meet this definition, The applicant argues that this ref re -nee u)
" wall" as wt� lI as others pertains to "Luropcan or Cali fornia-style stone walls." Nothing `rn the
3 language of RMC: 4-4-040 suggests that walls be Berated to stone ,valls.
4 In addition} to pro v1d)ng some clarity inn the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining malls, RMC. 4-
25 4-040(C:)(1 ) also establishes that retaining w-alls that do not project past the higher grange have a
Height cel' zero feet, which is helow all the hcight limit,, set for walls by. RMC 4-4-040. The sentence
26
L'RFLIMiNARY MAI'- 28
n
i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
]6
17
is
19
0
21
22
2 i
4
2�
26
clearly dates that retaining wall height is to be measured fror7i the "high side of the wall", v,-hic-h
would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in
light of the oLher limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in ewes where walls are used
instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does clot extend above the.. higher grade, it docsri't take the
place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit_ In short, retaining walls that only sen e to
.retiiu soil, as proposed by [lie applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-0401.
Practically- speaking; this mewls that I 1 4-4-040 down°t apply to retaining wall,; solely used to
stabilize grade wparaLions., since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 appy- as we. II.
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; gee
RMC 4-7-080(1){I), include the poIicxes addressing aesthe-tic. impacts identified in COL leo, 5,A -I _
s determined in Hinding cel - Fact No, 6.C. the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can he fully
mitigated by periirieLer landscaping.. Staff acknowle-dged as much at page 13 of the staff rept.)rt.
The-refore the record contains no adcquate j usti I i cation for a limitation on rctainilig wall hei,rht.
y. I.c ss cif Recreational Use.
Tire appellants assert that the pro jec:t site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding
community far decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse enviromucntal impact. "Ilic
loss of recreational use f from the properry is not an environmental impact of the proposal sLlt�JeCt (0
SEPA revie-w and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the CiLys
detail€ d park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that &,velopment will not create
demand upon park facilities that exceeds lcgislativel y Wop ted level of service standards.
As a preflrtiinm-y imattm it should be noted Lhat this decision noes not address the prescriptive rights
clWiims made by the appellants to the project site. his ruled in 1;x. Mi, the Fxan,iner has no authority
to address the pre c-Tipzive easement claims asserted by the SFPA appellants. Practically speaking,
this dccisIuij will HOL prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rig]ILs claims if the appellants diligently
pursue those claims in superior court. the proper forum Torr such a claim. Should the appellants
actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school
property (whiQh appears unli cly at this juncLure), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial
rchofto prcvenL development of the proposal.
No additional H'A review- or mitigation is 111e."ted on the recreational use issLic bccau.�e the loss of
that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence ofany prexcriptive, rights to
the project site, project opponetrts are left vw�ith the argument that the applicant sh) Id fund further
environmental rev iew. or ptovide Ior additional mitigation to compensate fib die fact that either ( I )
the applicant was benevolent enough to allow. the public. Lo use its property; or (2) the public
repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's proPc-Tty. From ari equitable standpoint. such a poL"JIL1011
PRFJ..IlvffN l PLAT - 29
I border; ort the absurd- N. -fore importantI . the applicant could prevent the public from using its
2 property at any time, with or vvithu,LL the proposal, For this reason; the loss of recreational use should
not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of enviToin mernvil rcvie- -
3
Fven if los, rel' the recreational use of the site could be lcgitimately considered an er,�-irorunental
impact liar purposes a!' SF.PA, its lass would not qualily as a prohablc sigilifi�-,ajlt Ltdvurse
5 cnviroinmental impact. The City's corniprchen�;ive plan, park impact fees and open space requiremeals
are all designed to assure that each developer is rcquared to provide its proportionate share
6 contrib Aon to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will he met as
7 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant Nvith all of these
requirements. In point of fact the.. applicant i iil be required to pay park impact fees at the tirile of
8 building permit issuance- The applicant is also providing for 1,2 acres of open space, even though no
9 open space is required for subdivisioins in the It -S zone- As would be expected, none of the City's
park policies or regulations penalizts a developer for witlidraMng the ability of the public to use or
I(} trespass upon its property, Since the applicant is acting fuIfv within the requirements of the Cit '
11 dctailcd park- policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be comiidered to create adverse impact; it)
the City's 0 e- puk,lic's) parks and recrcatioml svgtem.
1
13 PRFLIM[N RY PLAT
14 Revic%v C'riteila. Chapter 4-7 RMC govern,, the criteria for prelimirviiy review. Applicable
15 standards ire quoted fx lcrw is italics and applied through corresponding cone Iusions of law.
16 1tMC 4-7-080(R): A subdir'isinn.shaV be consislew vvith (hefibilolving Principles of aecepubdin...
17 1. Legal Lois. Create legal building sites which comp�v �vlth all pro visions o 'the City 1.nin Code -
2, Ac',�€.xy: Fnablish ac'ces.v to aapublic road f�)r each sc��;re iec1 p61 cel,
1 {J
3. 1 hys:ica£ C.'harar-lejIsiic.'s: 7fave smirable phys'ic'al characteristics. A prolxr.Yed plat nw-v be denied
20 because, o flood! inundalion. or ►eland conditions. (-'crnstrizetion of prolective improvements may:
21 be Per uir•eda,s a c'ondillon of'approval. and such imprrrremems Aber!£ he noted on the fince! plat.
22 4- Drainage: Make ac equale provision fi;r drainage kvgvs, sireels_ alleys. other public ivay,s, )valer
3 iupjjIi€.% unc sanitury k as es.
24 RNIC 4-4-1180(U)(7).
25 a. Bc.nr ls cif: Joint use drirekvays reduce Me manher of cuph culs along individual ,sweels arra
2
thereby, improve sgfely and reduce congestion while providingfbr addifional r�ri-.�f,ccfi parking
PRF.i.il{llNA Y PIAT - 30
f ey)purIunjlies� Joint lr,se car iveT a}!s ,sho�dd be encouraged ►vhen feasible rand a 1�rr�pr rate, (Ord 4.51 f_
5-8-1995)
b, Where Permitted- Adjoining coiiwa ercial or industrial teses rrtcay astili e c7.jr int ir,ve driveTvc'v ti,here
suchjoint use driveway reduces dze loiCal number of �biveivrrys ent��t•ingrhe ,slreel ncA4,,ork..sn jeca ter
4 Me approval o 'the Departinew of Corrmuniay anel Economic Development ,Iolne trse drikewaYs
5 muss be crealed upon tile} common pr-opmv line of Me 77r perfles served (rr 1hr o ugh alae granting orf -a
)ePmewenl acccss easemem when said drive ►vgY doe,5: nol exist Ypon a common property line- Joini
Use access lir the drrvewav shall &� assured by easement or other !c.galfior•m acceptable to the City,
7
7. As to compliance with the 7oning Code, Finding 1 2 of the staff report in the portions
8 related to dor s-1tyt i o I dimensions, sethaek,, and building standards (Pages 12-13) art adopted by
reference as if set forth in fiall, with all associated reeornmetided conditions of approval adopted by
this decision as wtAl,
10
As depicted in the plat map, Stall' Depart Ls. 1'
most cel' the io#s will direcily access a public Road
11 (Road A, SF. 1 Sth Street or 124th Place SL). As noted iu Finding of Fact h -Cr, shared drive— ays are
12 proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, sots 38-40 and Lots 79-91, Staff additionally suggests Lot I l
and Lots 78 take access €'roar the sliared drivew-ay, 'Isere are no topographical or critical areas issue,.
] 3 to preclude these three.. IDts I -Mm having shared a"e-ss, The shared acce,,s would reduce the slumber.
14 cel curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end cel' the
saime street. Potentia] vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would he lessened by consoli6fing clriVeways.
15 Nowcver, the applicant tcsti€ied use ul' the shared drivt;wav I -Or Lot l l is probletnrmc. because the
16 driveway would he at an angle to the ruadway which would also change the design of the house to
allovv side loading of the garage. The applicant (,hjected to the inclusion A' l:ut 78 in a sharc d
17 drive ay. There appear to he no material differences hetween Lots 78 and 81 in terms oforientation
18 or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance; limiting potential vehicle and
pedestrirui conflicts i,, desirable. Though a change to the desigtr cel' the House on l,ot I 1 is not an
19 unreasonable wcommodation to allow for vchicular and pedestrian safety aL the cul do sac, the
20 dri veway for Lot 11 would he at ai3 undesirable angle to the shared drivew iy. The cul do sac serves a
limited Number of houses. In this instance, #he. salciy effect of removing one driveway access to a cul
21 de sac docs not outweigh the impact to Lot i 1 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway-. The
22aproval 'iII he conditioned to re. -quire the inclusion of I.« is 12-14, Lots 15- l7, [_c)t% 39-40 and Lots
79- 81 is shared driveways -
3
24 As d tenriined irs Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the proje-ct is adequately designed to prc-vent any
impacts io critical areas and will no# cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No -
6, the proposal providcs liar adequate puhlie faciIItie s,
6
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 31
IIMC 4-7-080(1)(1): .—The Hearin ),-rammer, shall assure confirm ance with the generaljurposcs
2 ref the C omprei ,&sive Mon crndadnpted srandards-.,
3 8, The proposed preliminary play 15 consistent with the Renton C'ornprchensive flan ai outlined
in Finding i(1) of the staff report, -which is incorporated by (his reference as if t lirrl.h in full.
4
RMC 4-7-120(11): No plan .1br the replattirrq, stibdivision, or dcdicrafion ref rrny areas shall be
approved by Me Hearing Lcuminer unless the sirens sheiitw l erein are connected by s?.0 i?cedroad
6 or slreel (according to C.'ifr-xo ars alCisling sireer or highway.
7 9. As shovvii in Staff Deport Fx- 2, the hiternal road system connects to SL 1 ' treel �i1xd 124"'
Place SE, bath pub.1ic roads.
9 R -NIC 4-7-12[1()3): The location of ull - beefy shall cw?Ibrm to ani, a dgj?fedplransjor sfreels in the
10 City.
1 1 10. The City's adopted street plats are no addressed in the staff report or any-whcrc else in (he,
administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends tv,,o existing stub Gads,
12 SE 10 Street and 124" Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards.
13 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal
14 RIVIC 4-7-1 0(C): If'a ,subdivision is locived in the avea ofan gffic'ially d€.},signed f sic] frail,
15 provisions: shall be made for reservation of ehe right-gf-way, . oror ea-vemenl.r t<r 1he Ciry.f6r trail
pzupose,s.
16
11. According to the Renton 'Trails and Bikeways Nlap (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is
17 designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would bk� required to obtain
1 right-of-ivay. or an access casement across die pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SH (ee
Finding 31.6. Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a sale crossing for the
19 dcsignaLed trail across the cxwnsion of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant
0 shall submit a revised plat Arlan depicting, a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 1241h Place S1:.,
extension, [irr the Seattle Waterline Pede�Lriark Trail,
21
22 -
RMC'4-7-130(C). r! p1ca1..s�horlplal, ,subdivision or dedicalion ,shall heprc-,pci�red in eogI rma€rce
k ith the allow-ingprovisions:
3
1- Land Unsaitrable.for Subdivision. Laird ivhich is found la bc, unsuitable.for subdivision includes
24 land }villi features likelw° ler he hartn.Ml to the ,safety and general health of the , future residents- (siwh
25 as: laird.% cid er-wlv r�&cted lir•- ,fa?orrdhk , .5Ieep slopes_ or nick , frrrrrm laons), Land kt°Rich lire
Dee} arl eni or the hearing F,xamincr considers inap}7ropricalc, }err subdirision shall Erol be
26 .subdivided 2inless adcrgwne .sgfi<gurrrris rrre provided ag ainst these adverw condition .
P L:i.lMIN ARY PLAT - 32
2
4
5
7
S
9
l {}
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
1
20
1
22
23
4
25
26
a. blocrrl ng'raa:rtclatio : If anYportion trf'the land Tv thin the boundary of aprelim inary plat
is surject to flooding or inundation, that portion o 'the subdivi.vion rmmsi have the apps -oval f
tlae Slate according ding rte chapler 86.16 ROF be fbre rhe Deparlmeni and the, Near Mg Examiner
.shall ewivider• ,such vubdivision.
b. Sleep xSlopLL,;: A plan, ,shorrplat. subdivision or dedivalion which would rays elr in the
creation c fa lot or lois that primarily have slopes. orlypereeni (4 0%) oj, g) -eater r
61ElO.suredper RWC 4-3 -050JI a. without rldec¢uaic area u1 le,sser slopes upon ivhich
d€.}velopmeni may occur, shall not be approved
I Land Clearing and Tree Retenriort: Shall comply- with R 1C 4-4,.1.30, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regidations_
4_ Streams:
v. Preser varion: Every ret sonabie effrrri .shall hv rrcic? to pr[?,SCrvi' eristing strcam,s, hrxtlie.s
of 'water, and wettandarcas-
b. Method- if'a stream passes through any rr -the ,yubjeclpropert}; a pleat shall be presenied
it,hic'h indicates ho ii, ihe ,stream will he pre. erred, The n?alwdologies "ed shotrld include an
0kjet. flokv area, and an allernpt to mini i:e the din urbance rf Mc, nut chany2ei and sirearn
b rd.
C, culvertrng: I he Piping or Iunneling of'ivaler shall bc disco uraged and allowedonly. when
going under .sif-eels.
d Clean IVafer: Every �ffior l shall he mafle to keep all .strear s and bodies ref water clerer of
debris iindpollutcrnl,s_
1 .. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding o1' Fact 5,11, the stortnwater
design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas w-111 he 1rrotectecl_ As
determined its Finding of act No- 5_R, no lots wide primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piling
or tunneling of streanis is proposed. Ti -cos will he retained as required by R -MC" 4-4-130 as
determined in Finding of Fact fro, 5,A.
RMC 4-7-140. Approval of ,dl subdivisions located in either .single family residential or ?H 7110 -
family restdemial zones as defined in the Zoning Code .shall be c.onlingent upon the subdivider's
dedication qj land oe providing ee,s in lieu o -dedication to the C"itv. all as nec:e,ssairy to mitigaie the
adverse effects ref developmew upon the existing park anti recreation service levels. he
PRE LIMINA RY PLAT 4 33
I reyi rements and procediires for !Iris r?xiti adon ,shall be per the (:'iry of Renton Parke XIttigution
Resolution.
3 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance,
See also the discussion on lc>ss of recrcat i onal use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above.
RMC 4-7-1 +0(A): The prqlxr.Yed sfreer sys1 arra shall extend arra create c onneclions between exivin
sheers unless otherwise approved by. the Public TEor'ks Department_ Prior to approkiing a ,street
6 syslem th ar does not e_rrend or conneel, the Reti4ewing Officlal s'hccll find Mar such exception shall
7 eel Me requirements of'subsecrion E3 cif this ,Section. the i-oa wav classifications ,shall k, as
dgfined and des ignared l y the Depm tame.!.
S
14. A,, shown in Staff Report Ex. ?, the proposed inlerrtal roads extend two existing stubs, S)~
` 18"' Street and 124th Ylacc SF_ The internal Road A creates a loop connet.tiorn bemccn the tw-v
10 public streets which did no( exist previously
11 RMC 4-7-151)(B): 411 pr-oposed .vreet numes shrill be approved by the C: hy.
12 I5_ As conditioned.
l
RMC 4-7-150(C) Sire els b2zersec_'th,r tvilh exist ing or proposed p,!4blic highws, r: q or or'
14-�econdary arterials shall he held to a mini6tum.
15 16_ No n c of the proposed streets jatersect with a public high%vay or arterial_
16 IMC 4-7-150(0): The alignment of 'allscree}ts shall be rer,iewed and approved by the Przblrc: ff'orks
17 Deprar meal. The street standards ,sel l'v IIIC' 4-b-�Jli(1 shall apply, unless wherwi,se ajrprove d. �Streei
uligninew offsets gfles,s than one hundredtwemy,f�ve,fser (125.) are not desirable. hul rrray box
1$ approved b ' Me De par imenl upon a showin rx treed 1)ut only gfter 1rovi,sion rr all necessar - ,s'cc cry
PP } 1 1 .1 � _ I .f !� .f
19 Inecks ut-c: s.
0 17. As determined in Finding of fact 6, the Public Works Department has rt viewved and
21 approved the adt tquacy of streets.. which includes compliance with zipplic�lble sulcet standards.
2 RMC 4-7-150(]F)-
2-3 1_ (;?Id,- A grid streeI 1�alter•n shall be used to rvmineel existing and r etv tie velopment and shall be the
4 predornin aw streeI paitern in any subdivision perrrairred by this Section-
,? 5 2..1,inkxiges: Linkages_ including sires}is, sidewalk v. redevrian or bike I�arh, _'hall be provided
6 11,ilhin and bei ii.-een nei hbor'hoods 1'4 hen they can create a contira sous and interconnec te}d network
PRE LIIINARY PEAT - 34
I ofroads andpailrways. Irrplemenialion of -chis rep ire, m cfnt shall eomply rt°ilh C:'oin rehensive flan
fYaY�, pr rrc�rTo�2 fl lea'Jenr ()hjec:etve T -A and Policies T 9 livou h T- 16 anti Comm 1)eFign
Ele menz, Objecrh e (.'D -;V and Policies CD -j0 and CD- 6 0.
3- Exceptions.-
4
,xceptions;4
5 a. The grid parlern may be adfustedlo a ';flexible grid" by reducing the nijrnher ref'lirrka es
or the al ignrr ew feed ween roads, where lh f i�llowing. f uc for s erre present on site:
G
i. Irr Msible clue to logo rai�lticc�Irer�3'ir(rnrne�tal cr�,asrrainl.s, andlop
7
i!- ,Subs'tanrial hf,]P overnents ars' exhain .
9 4- C'onwcrron.s: 1 ,ior to adoption of a complc}rc},-rid .sireelplan. reasonable cr�,�neaions that Irak
exi.sling ponie s of the grid system .shall he made. A r a jn h 2 im urrr, shib street-� .shall be required
10 l.1,41hin subdivisions ler allow.fulure connectivirv-
II
5. -4 Ile), Avees,s_ .flay access is the prqferredstreei pallern except orproperiies in the 1deride. nliai
12 Low Densiry land use des ignal ion. The Reside ial l.ol Density land use designation includes Me
RC. R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval ref'aPlal 11,ithout alley -ace( tine evie wing Cif ickd shall
1' evaluate an alley layr)rri and dctermine that rhe use ofallel -(.$) is nrrl fi}asible...
14
0- AIlernalive COogfiguralron.s,- Offsei or loop roads are the referred alternaiiw,e cogfaguraiion,s.
1
', C ul-de-.Sere .51reets: Cvl-de-sac sircfels ma- only he permitted by the Reviewing C?ffdc•ial where due
16 to demon cable physical constraints- no future.} connec tioPi to a larger .sirecl pattern is phy ically
17 passible.
18 18. As ,bo n hi Staff Report Ex. 2. the f ropo. eci street S stem Contributes to the grid system by
19 creating loots access which did not proviicsusly exist, both of the intersecting public. mrcets are
currently stub reacts- AIIey access is not required because the proposed d en si ty does nest meet the
2(} dw-e-fling unitlacrc threshold- The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above.
l 'fhc cut do. sties proposed cannot he extended to connect the road network because of Clic presence o1'
two pipeline casements. The criterion is mel,
22
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjac enl riVhis-of-1-t°ay excret neii rights -t)
_��,c , dedrealed as j7arr of thetheplat,
including sireels, roads, and alleyV9 -shall be graded to lheir firll width and the pavement and
2.4 s lde walks ,shall be corrsiruc led us spec f f ed in rhe 51reel ,standards or dcek rred Fly the
25 Planning;BuildinWPublie N:orks Administrator or hiy./her designee -
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15
1 19. As proposed all roads will trice( C'i(y street profile standards for i-oad with and frontage
2 improv-cmcllts.
3 R1TMC 4-7-1510{(.): Streets that may he cxiended in rhe evew gjj0ure a4jacew platring shall he
required to he dedicated to the plat houndwy lime. Extensions of'grearer depth than an avera e lrrl
.shall he improved iviih femporary ruriiarour ds. Dedication of a fidf-width hounda y slreel .shall be
5 required in certain ln.stances to f« c:illtate. fiihire development.
20, As sht wii in Ex. 2 to the Staff' Deport, the propu� J roads )nay not he extended due to the
7 presence cif' pipeluic casements. The subject is surrounded on all side,, by existing residential
development.
RMC 4-7-171}(1): Insofar a,s praclic•al, side,, lot lines xhall he at right angles io ,sirc,et litres or radial
9 to eRrved str eei lines.
10 21. A,,; depicted in Staff` Report f-x, 2, the side are in conformance with the requirelttent
11 quoted above_
12 RNfC 4-7-170(B): P-7ach lot must have f wcess to apirblie,streei or goad 4cccss may be by privaie
1 3 access ew:e eni .sir eei per- the req{ jiremenis of 11?e street slandrrrf#s-
14 22. As prcviously determined and condilluned, each lot has access to a public strcct_
15 RMC 4-7-170(C): The .size, shape, crud orientaiion of lots: shall meel the ipninhnum area and width
16 requirements of the applicable zoning �Iassc•alion and shall be uppropri-are fb;, the aqre r .
development and use cownrplated Furlher .subdivision of lohf will n a plan approved through the
17 prow sions ref this- Chapter mast be connivent with rhe then-currem applicable wcr!dmum r0islty,
18 regidremenl as meas-ured within the plat as a whole.
19 23, As proviously determincd and as conditionrcl, the proposed lots comply (he zoning
standards oi-the R- 8 zone,,,Which includes area, width and density.
20
21 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width beivveen side lot lines at aheir fr)remoyt points (i. e_, the points where the
side loo lines inlet-sect wirh the sireed € i hl-c -w(zv hien shall not he le.ys than erghr y percem (0%?) of'
22 Ihs requir•edloi w.idih except in the c'uses ref'(I)pipe.sten? lots, ►vhich shall home a in fnirtmm 4vidlh ref
2 r44enlyftel (20 j and (2) foss on a _streel curve or the lurning Orcic ofc id-cls}-.sae (radial lots). ii hich
shall hc-, cr minimum of Ihirly fire feat (35').
24
24. The applicant has propmied several lots including Lots 14, 15 and '18 which do not mect the
25 mimmuni frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Co on of Lave 27, each cel- flhese
26 lots must he eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontag.e width requirements_ Or. as
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 36
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 {�
11
1?
13
14
15
1
]7
18
19
0
21
2?
3
`'4
25
2
discussed in C'ondiLsion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternadi e plat plan
which includes a conibinati(mi of all Iots fronting onto a public street nteetirtg minimum lot vxidths
and those pordoins of the lots now proposed for shared drivcway/access easements.
RMS' 4-7-170(E): No residenlially zoned lot shall have a depth -lo -width ratio greater than. our-io-
one (4:1).
25. !ls conditioned, u]1 pipestern lots will be eliniinatcd or revised to meet minimum lot width
requircments which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion,
R.NIC 4-7-170(F): fJil lot corners at inlerseclio s -of dedicaied uhhc ri hl_y-o-i1 ', except r1llcxys,
s:ha/[ have ininimum radius of Mi tcenfieei (1 5 �.
26. As proposed all lots meet Ibis criterion,
RMC 4-7-170((ir): Pipae tem loll way' be perm itted.for raewplals fry ach eVe Me minim? fm &Tuity
within the lwming Code -1-hen there is Fro orher_ easible allernarive to achieving the minimum density,
Minimum Lrel Size and Pipe,sierrr ff"idth qtr 4Lf 7he1�ijvslem shall not exceed one hundredf ltv
fier (150.) in Tenglh and not be less Man tvvewrv- feel (0') in width. The portion of 'rhe for narrower
Man eight), percent (801) qfihe inini um permilted widlh .hall not be used. or for area calc ulaiaom
or- fur the measrrremernr gff-equired front yard .relbac -. Iand area included in private aecess
ew,e€r ants shall ttol be included in lol area calculations. Pipe.stem lols .shall not ahut o)ie anolher.
27_ 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_ Pie- applicant has proposed several
pipestem lets including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38; 40 and 79, As a condition of approval, each ofthcs4
lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the niluirnum frontage width requirements. As an
alternative, the applicam may also submit an altcrnative plat plan which includes a Qombination of
al Sots fronting onto a public strut meeting ruinimun} Iot widths and those portions of the lots no w
proposed for shared drivewayla.ccess easements as discussed above in Conclusion of 1:aw 5.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Fasements tpuTv he requir'ed.for the mainlenunce and operalion of-ulihfies av
spec fled by i e Deparimem-
2 . his conditioned.
RMC 4-7-190(H): Dve re and shall he shown to all nalural. fMmores such as la"ge. trees,
watercourses, and similar eommuni{v a.s.scls, ,Such natural.features should bepreserved, lhej'eb}:
adding arty activeness and valve to the property_
I'] F1.T TIN R PI -AT- 37
l 29, Trees will be reiained as required h}+ City code as determined in Finding of Fact No, 5. There
2 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the eriterion cluuted abovc.
3 Rl4•i[C 4-7-200(A): 1!nles-s septic tanAs are .srec iftally a t paved by Me Public IVork,s• Departrnent
and the King Co uniy Health Depariment_ sanitary sc}we,,s .hall be provided btv the developer tv no
4 vo t to Me City and deslgned in accordance wiih C ily slrrndardi . ,Side se-% erliraes shall be i, t.5 lulled
5 eight. feel (8) alto each lot if sanilury seTvcr maim ape available, or provided with the subdi ision
de velipment,
6
7 30. As coTiditioncd.
RAIC. 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage syslen? shall be provided.'or lhe proper dr•alnc7t�ca of edl
surface wider. Crossdrains shall bc provided io all nalbwal wvler flow and shall be qj`
9 sq(ficier?t length to Jull-Tvidlh roadway and required slolre•s,_ The draii: age sy-stem .shall he
10 des'ignedper the requirements o 'RWC 4-0-030. Drainage (urjiace [Valer) ,Swndards,_ Jhe drainage
.system shall include detention capaci v fila the new _street crrcfas• Residertlit-of pleas shall also inchide
11 derenlion capacih. for. future developrrlenr of rhe lol•s•. Water qualftY. feami es shall also be designed to
12 l-ovide the nest- •sireea paw gj6r the plus_
1; 33. The proposal provides for a&quate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City-
drainage standards as dctern,inecl in Findings of )~act No. and 6. The City's ,tome atef standards,
14 which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be. further implemented during
15 civil plait revicx, ensure compliance ),v. ith al I ref the standards in the crilc:rion quieted above.
16 _RMC 4-7-200(0: The water di•s•rribulton system including the locarions gf:fire hydronts shall be
17 designed and installed in uc•curdernce, bi'ith C.'ity, standards• as def ed by. rhe Depar•1rnew and Pire
Depar'iment requiremems••
18
19 31 _ Compliance with City water systern design stundaWs is assured during final plat review.
20 IMC 4-7-200(D): All indilies designed to serve the •subelivi•sion shall be placed underground. Any
utilities imi alled in the parkin ,so -it) shall he placed in stic.•h a manner and depih lu permit the
] planting qprees. 7 xr •se ?rlififie.v to be located benecrrhpaved spar' aces skull he insialledl MeWhig all
22 service connections, as approved fry the Oepariment. Such installation .shall he completed and
approved prior to the application qf arxv surface material. Eas•einexr x rraav be reqi( ir-ed .fir the
23 maintenance and operation of urrlities cis •specifiefiby° the Department_
24 - All utilities including. the stornmater vault are pro�acrse�i to be place underground. s
25 conditioned, Litility installation xv ll be inspected and approvt� i prier to paVing 01'surf9ace materials
above the utilities.
6
PRELIMINARY 111 -AT - 38
I R-MC 4-7-200(E): Any eahle TV romluifs shall be undergrounded ended ca the samc, lime as orher bask
2 wilities fwe in.vialled to ,nerve each lot. C'onduil fib' - ,4ervice cc nneclions shall be laid to each Irl line
by si4bdivider• a.v to obviale the necesshy. or disiu,,hing 11:e-slreel area, including sidewalks, or alley-
3
lley3 ifitprovenrents 1vkm such service connections are e_ fended to scree any building. The t•oxi of'
trenching, conduit, pedesfa1.v- andl(rr vaults and lawrals as well a.w ea-vemenls there ore rcguired to
bring scrrtcc ra the development -shall he 1rorne by the developer and or Land owner. The ,subdivOeۥ
5 shall be responsible on1v_fi)r conduit to .;ert'c' his development- (.anduit endv - dfill be elbowed to
final ground ele vation crud cupped The cable TVcompany ,shallIwo Vide r qj?s and specifications to
the subdivider and-4udl in.vpe4�;i the conduit and certify w the Cily Mal it is properly installed.
7
33. els coaditioncd-
8
SIC 4-7-210.
9
11 Concrete permanem conlrol mon umenis .shall he established al each and every conlroOng corner ref
12 the subdivlslon- Interior Prion unew.s ,shall be located as: deiermrned by the D67.?artrnew. All sup -vet's
shall be per the City rjf'Renfon surveying standards,
I ; B SUR
VE
Y
14
Ala? other lot corners shall he mar•kedper the Ciiy sure-ey.in srandards-
15
16 C- S TR EF. T ,SIS; N S:
17 7 he Pebdivider -shall in,siall all nreef name signs necessa,,-y ars the subdivi.yion-
18 34. As conditioned.
19
0 V1. DECISION
1 The proposed 96-lot preliminary falai as depict i in UN, ,-{ to the staff report, and critical area
excrnpLicn as described in the findings of this decisicm, are approved subject to the follov�ing
22 conditions:
2s
24
X111 references to the plat neap in ihi5 decision in the Jindin&ps and conclusions have been to L%hibit ? of Line slaff
5 report. Those references are aMffaw. Aowe cr, the plat approved by tliis decision is depicted in E%11ihi1 3 of thti
staff report, which i5 the 96 lot suhdiviL,ion a4 opposed to the 97 lot sipbd Mslon26
-
PR1 LIM— INARY PLAT - 39
I 1- The applicant shall Qomply with the mitigation measures issued a�; part of the Dotcxminatimi
2 of Non- Signi licance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified bt-1C)W,
} a. MDNS Conditiou 1 shall be revised as follows:
4 All earthwork perfbrm-A implcmcnted by the apphcana, shall be consistent with the
5 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated FaMfi Sciences,
inc.. dated September 28, 2012 or consistent -kyith the rcconinie-ndatioil S of the final
6 City -approved geotechnical report. —
7
8 b NWNS Condition 6 Miall be stricken acid replaced with the foIlo ing,
9 The applicant sialI revise its landscaping plan to provide For a 10 fioot wide on-site
Iandscape scrip for all lots and a Ill loot wide, site obscuring perimeter land scapiri &,
10 adjacent to areas where the. retaining walls are four or more feet in height, speed 11 QUIly
I l in the perimeter areas cic>se to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94.
l.akid�.aping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall, The
12 final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
13 Planning Project Manager prior to coinstrumioi] permit approval- Such landscaping
shall include a mixture of trees. and grouadcoveir tis approved by the
14 Department ol'Conimunity and H-Wnomic Developmcnt,
15
I The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-l()ol lot
16 width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feel in width at the fore-nio "t poinGs (where the
17 side lot lines Triter,,ect with the street right-ol=way line pursuant to RMC 4-11120. The
average distance betwt� en the side lines conneo:fing front and rear lut lines shall be submitted
18 to the. Current Panning Project Manager pnor to constfuction Perini( 4pproval.
19
I The applicant shall N3 required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depictiiig
20 curb bulb -outs where on -street parking is located. The revisal plat and landscaping pians
1 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval,
22.
4. The applicant shall be required to suhmit a revised Mat Lind landwapiuig plan. which are
2' elements of the City's required construction plan sec. depicting curb bulboncs at street
24 intersections vvhere ori -street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and
installation of "no parking"` designations %Gere street parking i5 prohibited at street
2 intersections- The revised plat and landscaping plan shall he stubm2tted to quid approvcd by
26 the Current Planning Prgjcct Mariager prior to construction permit approval.
PRLL NN A RY PT, AT - 40
1 5. The app] ic<uil shall eliniinatc individual access directly from irikeriial public streets for these
2 leis abutting private streeis aiidlor shared driv'c -ay access easements, spec ifically+ i,ois 12-
14, 1.ots 1 -17, mors 38-40 and Lots 78-51 in shared dr] veways. Said lots shall be required to
3 take access front the abutting private street and,`or access easement and slhall Yzot exceed
4 access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot I I may access the public street
diirc:ctly. Thu tuvised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
5 Projcci Manager prior to construction permit approval. I 'urth emi ore, the access restriction Cor
6 such Iots-is required to be toted on the face oftfii� 1{inal flat prior to recording.
7 fi_ The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation }plan to depict all retaining v.aIIs on bite,
including lock & lead walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C:, The applicant
shall also i dc n (I Iy II'proposed waIIs arc: anticipated to impact critical arca huNers and provide
appropriate mitigation for such impacts- A Final Mitigation ]'fan, pursuant to RNIC. 4-9-
1 0.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by. the Currcnt Planning Project Manager prier
10 to construction permit approval.
I]
7. The temporary' buffer impacts consisting of ininor intrusions Or distuib4ace ficin
I construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, loll amendnrents. and the
13 planting of riative species to the satisfaction of the Current Pkinning Fro 'jcct Manager_ The
revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by. the Current Planning Project
14 Manager prior to coristrtiQcion permit approval,
15
S. The existing uvctland mitigation plain already assures that 1,33 I square feet of additional
16 wetland buffer arca is being provided to mitigate for bath existing buffer impacts to % etland
17 E that are not associated v�-ith the Plat, as well a� the loss of 14 squat feet of the Weiland F.
buffer v.hich Ioss i� associated wvith the extension cif' SF ] SIh Street. To provide an additional
i8 offset for the imparts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the Mill of 14
19 square feet of buffer to extend 5E 18 th Street_ The applicant has agreed to prev ide and shall
provide enh.anoement to the Wetland `L.' buffer imincdiately abutting SI; 18"' Street, as v�.Cll
20 as enhanced plantings adjoining that buf7lt�r urea within Tract A A revised mikigution plan
`} 1 shall be submitted to, and approved by.. the Current Planning Project NlanaFer prior to
construction permit apl yoval.
2?
23
9_ The applicant shall be.. required to establish a Native Grcmth Protection Easement over those
parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place Iencing and
4 signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval.
5
10. Thi app] icaru shall be required it) suhn,it a fill source statement, if lilt materiafs are brought
26 to the site. in order to the City to ensure only. clean Ii12 is imported prior to construction.
PRELIMINARY MAT - 41
I 11. The app IicaiiI shall provide a final Tree Detention P]an, complying %v. i t h the 30% tree
2 retention SEPA mitiSation measure whiIc clenionstrati ng proposal retaining wails %vould not
impact trees proposed flo r retention. '['he Filial Tree Retention flan shall be submitted to, and
3 approved by, the CLirrent Planning Project llr' un�ager prior to construetion permit approval.
4 12, The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which i-, an elvmcnL of the City's required
5 construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124"' Place SE
extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian 'frail. The revised plat plan, as part of the
conAruction plan set, shall be submitted to; and approved by the Current Planning Project
7 Manager, Community Services I]epartment, and the Transportation Department 11ri«r to
8 construction pem-At approval_
9 13. `l'hc applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement thmu-h
the C edar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Placa SE, to the satisfaction of tht� Plan
1 Reviewer prior to construction permit approval_
]l
14. Pedestrian Iigliting, shaII be depicted on the light ing plan at the entrances oI'Tracts, f,' and f}
1 (irom the proposed right-ol=way). The lighting plan ,hall be submitted to, and approvtA by-,
13 [lie Current Planning Projec.L Manager and the. Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit
approval.
14
1 15, The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised -,t) that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a
shared driveway and that al lest one such lot shall meet minimum lot width reqUirements
16 along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170_D (a minimum of 80% t) f the required lot
17 width --'40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lo(s) which provides physical front.tage
along the street shall only be aIlo wed vehicular access from the shared prix ante driveway. Its
18 order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widv-ned to 35 feet and take
19 primary Access from the shared driveway., The revised plat plan %hall be submitted to and
approved by the C'umnt Planning Project Manager prier to construction permit approval -
20
1 16. The }plat plan shall bo revised so that all lots have no less Lhan a 40 -foot lot vvidth where side
lot lines intersect %vith the street right of way or liar radial lots be a minimutn 435 feet in
22 Aidth. Specifically. proposed Lots 147 17, sand 38 w- ould be required to he widened to 35 1cet
in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Current Plaraiing Prgjcct Manager prior to construction permit approval.
17, The applicant shall submit a revised plat flan depicting the elimination 01` all pipesteni lots
5 (I«ls which are less than 40 lees in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street
.6 right-of-way or for radial lets are less than 35 civet) within the subdivision. Specifically.
PR :LIMI AR PLAT - 4
I proposed Lots 12, 14, 15. 17, 38. 40, and 79 would be requiredw be eliminated or reg iced to
Med Mi17i1Tiun1 frontage width rc.€luirements, The applicant may also submit an alternative
plat plan which includes a ccm,bination of all list fronting onto a public street meeting
3 minirraum lot widths and those portions of the Iots now proposed fi r shared drive way/ac ccs�
4 easements could he placed in Sharcd Drivtway 'frets with e eluents placed over them
pursuant to RMC 4-6-060. Street Standards_ The revised plat plan shall be submitted it) and
5 approved by the Current Planning, 11'roject Manager prior to construction permit approval,
t-
6 18, Arty proposal to convert the Stormwk-ater vault within Tract A to a Storinwvater detention pond
7 he considered a Maior Plat Anxendment subject to the requiremcnts outlined under 1tMC 4-7-
0801\4,2,
-7-
080 , .
8
9 19. 'The applicant shall be re-gaired to create a homeowners' association and mairntenance
agrco-nlent(s) for the shared utilities. landscape areas, and maintenance and responsibilities for
r
l all shared improvement's of this development_ A cdmft of the do e-utnent(s) shall be submitted
11 to Current Planning Project Manager rear review and approval by the City A torncy and
12 Property Sorviees section prior to the recording of the final plat.
13 ?fl. Lite applic;arnt shall submit the results of the Phase I Fnviroumental Site Axsessment to the
City lirr review. Appmpriate r6tigation.. if any, shall be completed prier to issuance of
14 building, permits,
15 1. Al road names shall be approved by the City.
16 22. Lase men t,, may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as ,pa ,cilied by the
17 IJepartment,
is 23. Sanitary sewers ;bail be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and dcsig,ned in
accordance with City standards_ Side sewvcr lines shall be installed eight feet (8') intoe each lot
19 if sanliary seiner nlains are available, or provick!d with the subdivision development.
0 4. Any cable TV conduits slhall he ruldergroundcd at the sante time as other basic utilities are
21 installed to serve each Jct. Conduit: for scrvicc coninections shall be laid to each lot line,
2 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling
corner of the subdivision. intcriur manutnents Atli be located as detertidned by the
3 Department, All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveyiiag standards. All other lot
earners shall be marked per the Cid- surveying standards. The subdivider shall inat�all all
4 street name signs raecessaTy. in the subdiviCA tri_
25
0
PRF.L.TNTTNAR FLAT- 43
1
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
19
20
21
22
?3
24
25
26
DATED this 8'-` day of Janvar , 2015.
PW�L
City of Renton Hearing F.x{vmirter
.APPFAL RIGI ITS N 1) VALIiATION NCl`1'1CL5
RM 4-8-080 provides that the final dee isJun oI'the hearing exam itier is subjec! to appeal to the
RCnton 0 Ly Council. RNIC. 4-8-1 1 O(F.)�14) requires appeals of the hcaring examiner"s decision to
be filed within fourteen (14) calendar da;,, (Torn the date of the (tearing exarniuer's decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing. examiner may also be riled wi hin this 14 day. appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(h)(l3) and RMC 4-8-10U(G)(9). A neve fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the. issuance of the Teconsideration. Additional inrorniation
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City C'lerk's Oflke.. Renton City Hall -- Ah
floor. (425) 430-6510.
Allecwd property owners may recluesl a change in valuation 16T Property- tax purposes
not ilhstanding any program k)frevalmid on,
('RFL MCNARY PLAT- 44
ATTACHMENT
The Rerve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
(LCTA13-00157 , ECF, PP, CAE)
TESTIMONY SUIMIl LIRY
EPA Appeal #1— Applicants
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Taney Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had tiled an appeal to the City's SEPA
MDNS based on three issues. They tell the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the
current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 anti #6. They belie-ve it's better for
the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree. protection plan and have Henley's
arborist work with the C.ily's arborist to assure that &s, many trees as possible arc pre -served- They
requested amcndments to Condition 3. In addition, Con dilioiq 6 was imposed in the MDNS. Tt would
impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly
hurdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide burfering, which is not necessary
because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. Thcrc are bx--o rights of
ways along substantial portions of the bonders, the Mercer Tsl�Lnd Fater Pipeline and the Cedar liver
Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide, the other is 100 feet Ovide_ There is already substantial buffering
between existing uses and the project Lilje_
They haye an analysis responding to the City staff SOPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K I I ),
Ms- Rogers summarized this. analysis, They apps:Wed Condition 41_ Staff felt that Condition #1
would be acceptahlc if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised
geotechnical report_ The applicant agrees.
With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and 46 for the proposed perimeter
buffer, midgalic)n conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law.. statutory and case law
that establish a nexus of rough pro portion ality+, That nexus is required to be shown by the Cily prior
to imposition Of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers hal
held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each
other_ That is not the case here.
With respe,a to Condition #3, the scalae. of that condition has morphed from the 5 EPA MDNS to the
staff's current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the
applicants tree protection plan rather l.han the mom general requirement that they comply with
relf,vant City codes. Staff is requlring 3017v retention of trees rather than the Code require -inept that
allows for replacement of trees through mitigation {RMC 44-130(H)(1)(e)). The condition is
overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant
en viironmental impact rel aLed to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to
preserve 30% of the Lrees, The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently
damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't
intending to clear cut, They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down
throLugh inadvertent dTnage . if �o, these will be properly mitigated.
With re-spect to Condition #6, the pt!rinmeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a
"4mjnimurri 15 foot buffer" whii'h bee'ame 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is
nt-) significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here_
There is no Icgal authoriLy or 1ustii<ication by the Cit} to require Henley to protect one use from
another wUn the use is the sanie. The ncighhoring property ownurN could plant trees in their own
yards.
As designed by Kenley, the project already minimir�e,, visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that
are riot required by the code_ The code does not impo,e a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single
family project like this_ The majority of this site incudes a periimctcr buffer of 10-15 feet. There is
more on critical areas trach_ The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two
pipeline rights of ways, tvbki h are 60 feet and 100 Feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average
buffer goes up to IOC} feet between homes from this project and ad)accnt homes_ This is well outside
of rough proportiona]iLy,
Mr. Barry Talkington iii a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers_ Mr. Talkington
described his education and qualifical.ions. Ile prepares designs and layouts for single family
project_ He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc_ lie's prepared about 50 preliminary
plats_ It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into niore detailed engineering
design. They have prepared prelirnhiary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented l xliibit -1 1,
the ultimatc plat layout, Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, tile, 96-loL version of the plat. There
was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30 tree retention
requirement. They eliminated Lot 1 froth the original submittal.
In respone to iVls. Rogers, r. Talkington described the various perimeter buffer,, ranging
including 50 feet in Tracts B and M and near Lets 13 and 14, the buffer is ] 5 ft>ot wide. They have a
] 0 foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline_ The minimum
propowd buffer is 10 feet, By Tract G, the buffer is 100 fcct. The 1vlcrcer I. -land Pipeline is 60 feet
wide_ The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Same lots do touch the property boundary,
though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. 'There is additional greenspace ill
Tract I1. G and J. In w me places the buffer gees from 15 feet to 200 feet_ The average buffer width
is approximately 50 feet, With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only sia[
lot.,; touch the perimetcr of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the
project does not result in a significant adverse acs [bed c impact to the neighbors.
With respect to retaining walls, Ir. Talkinglon seated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic,
though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. Thcre i
grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest_ Grading is accomplished via slopes
or retaining walls. To crealt a hypothetical lot, either lyrade more laird or build a wall along the edge
and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees_ A
building permit is required for a wall of feet high or greater, Mr. Talkington has prepared building
perm i t applicaLion.x for this project and the associawd grading plans which will be suhmitl.ed today.
Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this
was the Erosion Control plan set. fir, Talkingtorl confirmed it is.
In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-2 1, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining wars would be
rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade_ He noted the top and hottoin or the wall
elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet, A cul wall is for when a retaining wall ix retaining
the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the exiting
Orrade, they would use a fill wall. These wally are constructed diffcrentIy- Fil] wall require extra
stabilization. in every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior cif the
project. For the FiIi walls, the face is to the exterior cif the project. Mr. Tallington addressed the �Laff
Report (Page 13) concern about the height and vi,,ibility of walls along the Ccdar River Pipeline,
The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and
the perimeter, For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit Kia. Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This
wall will not be visible from outside the project, For Lot 44, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to
profs uta the access drive, This will be AsihIe_ There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a
Fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report Mr, Talkington reviewed the heights of the
walls, They prepared all alternative design to reduce the heights of the wall_ The wall will now be 6
feet tall (Exhibit K613, the re-vised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders
the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lxrt 47 is 1,7 feet to b feet tall. Henley will he
will9ng to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the reviNed height.
Ms- Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPI Appeal, specilicalIy
Conditlo #3 and 46, Ms, Rogers stated she understood the staff's buffer requirements to screen the
adjacent neighbors from the development, including the, impacL of reLaining walls. Ms. Til=ons
agreed to relevance.
Ms, Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington
referred to this wall ax a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will
pnavide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this parr of the plat, 14r. Tallon ton stated there wa� no
siOificant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics.
Ms_ > ogt�rs addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the Taff felt those
retaining walls would interfere with tree retentionShe asked, in general, does designing a site to
include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation, Mr. Talkington responded it can help by
reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he deigns a
plat, the Cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than
grading. They were directed to save trees, which mcant construction of retaining wall,,_ Ms. Rogers
a► ked who Mr. Talkington turners to when he needed In dere mine the effects of hip design for
rein fining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talk inglon .said that's a question for the. arborist.
Ms. Timi-nons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thovghl. process on providing the buffers he
provided and their merit_ Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road ne-twork_ They had two
locations to tic in it) for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that
would be everyly distributed on both sides of the road_ They looked to use the property most
efficiently for the. lot layout with respect to the grading_ They tried to reduce the overali grading.
M,,- Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. r_ Talkington
stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets
in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as
part of the buffer.
M,,. Titnm«ns asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? My.
Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alLernative scenarios. They looked aL
how the buffer would inipact their original design. There. was a significant change in lot yield, Ms.
Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design, lie stated he did because he
wan Leri the project outcome. to be pleasing,
Mr. Steve I ee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as
much of a concise grading plan propoo�,ed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr, Tallc.ington pre -pared
one. He asked Mr. TalkingLon to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a
question for the ge-o4-chriical engineer. however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid.
Mir. Lee asked if construction of the goer -grid caused excavation in to natural areas, Mr. Talkington
stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind thein. Mr. Lcc asked if the walls would
need to be setback into} Lhe lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington
saki they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and n o L within the open space.
Mr, Lee asked if a tree is l« caled near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. r_ TalkiTigton
stated he didn't know,
Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. r_ Wright. described his
education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban
forestry consulting. He persom illy has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects
of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plana are accurate. The trees he
has designated for protection are saved_ Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that
doe-sn't look as good after the project and before. in that case, they instigate the trot-, The tree
protection pian exhibits are F.,xhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to
the most recent layout,
Ms. pagers noted the report concludes this is a `-well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means
he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look, if they supplement with lot
trees and street trees. in 10 years the propeay will be well treed_ There is a nice low inrush
community on [he site that improves the. buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are
also well treed_
s. Rogers ,rated the :3017rr tree retention requirement translates to preserving 199 yin -site trees. The
August tree retentii)n plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate other*_ lair. Wright stated his
understanding of the menton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be
replaced at a ratio of 2;1. lie stated lie is familiar with SLPA staff Condition #3. lie said his
understating cif the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement w-ithout field judginent_
The cock allows then to save trees but mitigate those that can't he saved.
1.s, Rogers asked Mr. Wrigh[ how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of
188 trees would be saved. They have rc-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than
they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undenak-en.
NY Wright discus,,eel the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He 'rated he had the
grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been eery hard on the edge
trees initially. Later, fie was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand,
Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the maiority of their roet�, ane growing. Ile
did a tree by tree analysis to deterniine how much, if any, intrusion could be clone to a tree's root
prc)tecIion zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current esti ination of
the number of tree that w I1 be viably preserved. He knc)ws exacdy which trees will he impacted, and
how for each edge tree.
Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre -construction meeting, They always ask to be included
in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked, He walkS those boundaries. If there is
anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustmerits. They mapped
tons to trees_ Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust
clearinV limits during the field observation. They'll re -move hazardous trees if they find them. After
that, they put up tree protection fences_ If anything changes during construction, [hen Mr, Wright
asks to he included in the decision of how to treat the trees.
Ms. Rogers asked if this process is descrihed in the tree protec(.1on plan, Mr. Wright said it i5, He
statcd he has no doubt this project will retain moree than 30% of trees even accounting tier field
adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't ot- shouldn't be saved -
Ms. Rogers asked Mr- Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50
sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically, N;fi-. Wright stated he
undcrstood the buffer and the tree. retenlion within the buffer- He stated he also is familiar with
lIcnlcy's p]an to provide 6 foot fences a]onthe backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the
50% screening requirement will he met- New trees can allo he planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a
15 foot buffer would add a few mare trees, but not a huge. amount, Ms. Rogers asked if Mr, 'Wright
thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project, The City Attorney
ohjected, The Exwniner stated the question limited to at! 4eIic impacts is allowed- r- Wright stated
the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring- There are treom everywhere bus the stormwatcr facility anti a few
in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you Qan see new
houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the
gaps,
Ms. locale Timmons asked Mir. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site, He Mated there
were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by ;urrounding
property owners. They are proposing Lo keep 181 trees plus lire lrcey in the critical area, and buffer�-
There are 62.6 sigliiticant tree in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality frees- They
will remove. over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmon asked how the removal of ,o many trees would
impact the surrounding property owners. Mr, W ighI said it's aesthetic, Therc i no ether impact.
Ms, Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as -
is, Mr, Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirenicnt. He staled it is a
valuable contribution it) the environment.
In response to Ms- Timmom, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on
the type of trees. the age of the trees and the how they are. growing. There are places on site where
the screen is dense and others that we thinner- They didn't neap elders anti colLunwoods. They didn't
include those in the survey- Ms, Timmons asked what huffer width is necessary to provide xcreenina
in a natural vegetated state. r- Wright stated it depends on site conditions, Mr. Wright stated if they.
plant in a 10 font buffer with a double staggered rove of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in
10 years, A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of
buffer,
City Testimony
locale Timmons addressed the applicant's le -simony with respect to Condition,, 93 and #6. The
City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude m -placement of trees damaged during
construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition #3 is solely designed to require a tree
wlention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that floes not rnect the requirement. It is not
detailed enough to be used during construction, Staff analysis (Exhibil. ) goes through the
sigriilycant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition
defines a significant impact and provides appropriate miltigution.
With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff- has demonstrated a signilycarit impact to
surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequal,ely
addresses these inipacts,
Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Rt -sources Managcr, described his
education and qualifications. He hay reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City, Mr.
Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It i5 a fully timbered site with 100% canopy
cover_ He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a
subdivision. This is a rare site_ He believes it is necessary to proteQt the tree canopy. The City tries to
retain as much canopy as po,,sible. He believes the, appropriate amount of trees to prowQL is a
minimum 30%.
In response to Juts, Tint ions, Mr. Ftatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adlecluatr to support a natural
vegetated perimeter, depending an the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation,
but not Iarge mature trees. He. provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 fet-t-
To his knowledge, the Cite requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are
some extra trccs being protected. Five feet is a eery miner increment. It would allow for more
planting. Mr. Flatley Oaled he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers
are to moderate climate and obscure sites fron) view_ it's an aesthetic issue for trail users and
adjacent neighbors, The buffer would provide pri%,acy_
Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to
trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Ftatlev stated the differ cncc, between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer
is not significant in terms oFmitigating impacts.
Nis. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had revicwcd the revised tree protection plan for the project. tie
stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 Ve"ion. Ms_ Rogers
asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 3011: of the trees
on the site_ Mr. Flatley stated with oversight. it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that
oversight_ He said he didn't.
Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of Cit} code, Mr.
Flatley a-med. that is was_ M,,;, Rogers asked if r_ Fiadey had provided SEPI iniNgation measures
to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't, Ms, Rogers asked if the
condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He
.dated it could.
With respect to MT)NS Condition #6, the buffer requirement was for tight. obscuring and was 15 feet
wide- The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-30 feet. Ms. Rogers
asked if Mr. 1~laticy had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar
with the City", Comprehensive Pian. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was
not Familiar with specific policies.
Ms- Rogers asked Mr. Hatley to review a large arca photo with respect to his earlier testimony
(Fxhibit K6c), Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the are -a and that there arc a number ()F green, treed
ureas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cecdar River and at
Tiffany Park. lic further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near
the project.
Mr. Flatiey Mated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing.
He agreed the project plan includes Fences and vegetation. r- Flatley stated lie didn't have any
knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't sec any in the aerial photo.
Ms. Timmons staved that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation MeaKure 43 it sounds as if
the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is re44uesting. The applicant is
failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy- The mitigation measure i
intended to preclude i�eplacenicnt tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation
ineasure- However, a tree retention plan is wiaenablc to the, City -
For initi ation measure 46, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation.
Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts,
App] icanI Testimony
In response to the Examincr. Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 Rx)t
buffer would he preserved but clearing and a wall wouId be located in the lots themselves (Lots 1 1-
14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All
ether improvements would be within the lot arca. There will be no additional clearing.
Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to mead the SEPA Appeal argument Ietter dated November 18, 20 14.
As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #1
and #3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition; but add a comma
and add a state -trent that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and
approved prior to construction, Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. leo perimeter butter is
required in chis zone and none exit surrounding the subject- The requirement would be unique. in
this area and they would he buffering their single fancily uses from surrounding single family uses.
There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics_ They have voluntarily provided 10-2.00 feet (50
Ibot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feel (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail
corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary_ Some have fill walls, the highest
currently proposed is to fact high. There is a 1010 font Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these
froperties and between adjacent properties. The City's SFPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan
Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification royr the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not
apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which docs not apply here. Thee uses arc
not different, The propased use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected.
There is no need fo r a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact
will invalidate the proposal and violate state law-
Public
aky-
Public Testinionv
Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Denton Potential Annexafioa Area in Denton Highlands_ Ms,
Dannelly stated she had ,uhniitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter,
Ms. Tinunons stated all 1,300 trees would be mining down. Row will the protected trees be
protected'' This do;veloper will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees, At Ms.
Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's'Bluff, this Baine developer clear cut all of tic
trees. Who wi11 make sure the trees won't be clear cut`s
Ms- Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and
impacting the development_ At Windstone, the detention pend failed three times ;pilling waler and
mud into a wetland and Haney Creek. At Piper's BIurf, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow
water two May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the
wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton alloiwed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers aVo.
They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope. cuff the area.
The hours of construction ord nancc must be; followed, How will it be.?
Renton leas an uidinance keeping dirt off of the road and prokecting streams during construction_ The
laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had
contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone Lind Piper's bluff. No staff person will be
there to monitor them.
The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDF.S permit from DDG prior to start
of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erasion control fences near wetlands, private property
or streams before clearing starts. They don't snake the contractors have the necessary pennits for
clearing before building permits, In the tate 1990.9 a builder cleared without permits and there way no
consequence.
Nis. Donnelly expressed concern about the Rcritorl appeal process. On November 26, there was a
notice in the paper talking about the appeal thnefraine for this development, yet the dncurnent itself
had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal
starts, bow can the City be trusted'? On ,Tune 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree
preservation policy was just for show,
Ms, Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Fort} -seven trees were supposed to be retained or
mitigated. Some of the trees wei�e saved. Many were cleared, The trees being planted are decorative
and replacing Douglas Firs and other large tree.,_ Same trees must be saved. She also showed
examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her Douse_ The dirt is washing. into Green Creek
and May Creek. No one at Denton cares about the street or the envirojament.
Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the gi)eenbclt sui-rounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those
are dirt paths without trees_ Ms_ Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the
trees are ASCI -100 feet high_ Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life_
The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't
provide proper notice of sale_ They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was
allowed on it. She encouracves the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on
this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak
issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction
defects repaired,
EPA Appeal # — ProjeO Opponent TPV4 AG
Appellant Testimonv
Mr. Daniel NIOVInaagle is the attorney fOr the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods
Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically
used the woods.
Mr. David Beedon is a member of the TP 'AG and has li%,cd in the neighborhood since it was built
34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Denton_ Mr, Beedon lives directly adjacent to
the project, He can walk to the former school property in five minutes_ The TPWAG is composed cif
Five persons who hold officer powitiorns in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The
purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as passible any environmental or offie-r impacts coning
out of this development_
He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exe-rcises there
and watches wildlife_ The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some
changes there were related to dirt cinbankments on paths .to facilitate mountain hiking, There are
teepee and treehouses built here. The w(x)ds have never been fenced, except along the Cedar liver
Pipeline. The fence leas been there at least 34 years. It has inert unmaimained. The fence is along the
City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has-
never
asnever been signed no trespassing.
There is an exti-Ittsive trail system in the wocrd�, that were there when he moved in. There are nine
separate access points along the two pipc]ine rights of way and other at the end of IRE Street. 'rhesc
are trailheads. The trails are a l4rge loop with several conneclor trails. The outer loop is aboix a 15
minute walk.
Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the
school district perlormed maintenmce there four times in the last three decades including cutting
down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the
school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and
twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a
member of the public.. Mr, Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the
property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping.
In 2010, Mr. Becdon called the school district to ask why sone trees had been re mo ved. The school
district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district ahout illegal trash
and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing
the rare pit.
Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to hirrn by r_ Mike pouch of the school district_ The email stated,
"I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and 1 wanted our folks to do what we
could to restore the beauty there."
r. Becdon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone.
Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog w��alking,
bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventory -In. plants. Kids build forts and tree h ousel_
'Phis area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there arm at least a drawn people in there.
Over the years, thousands of people have used il. Use of the arca has increLfied dole U) the informal
maintenarice of the paths.
Aesthetically, the woods arc beaUd rut, It`s a wild area with a variety cel' vegetation and wetlands. The
topography is interesting. Where are ,easo nal creeks, It reminds hien of the foothiIIs of the Cascadcs,
though with less dramatic topography, Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the- property
including bobcat. pileated woodpecker, and headed sapsucker,,, ducks, crows, other tyT s of birds,
deer, and owls. Mr. Bee -don Maned there are a rich variety of p]anLL, on the property. There are also at
least two geocaches on the property.
Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The
pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Denton cleaned out drain pipes
to improve. the drainage and reduce flooding.
In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Becdon staters he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in SepteTnher 2014
to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPNVAG had asked the
school district to allow them to do a third parl.y wetland evaluation. The school district denied the
request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer,
The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting
the public did not have a right to u�e this property in the first place. How is theme an adverse impact
under SEPA` Therc could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to
adjudicate prescriptivc use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v, Bellevue. and
the limits on restrictions of Hcaring Examiner authority, specifically i.egune v. Ciallarn County, and
others. The Examiner's authority is linuted to those described specifically in the City code. The
Examiner asked M r. Me Mona& to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance oaf Che
public prescriptive right to the property by Itioveinher 281h with applicant and City response by
D] cember 5th.
Mr. Stereo Neugebauer of SIR Company is a licensed hydrogec)logist and engineeringgeologist_
He presented a PowerPoint pre,,entation highlighting the relevant i.xsues frons his report (Exhibit
M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He ,toted the biggest issue with this project is-
groundwater
sgroundwater and the. engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is
inadequate, His �,cope for this project is to Rse55 the applicant's studies and to review the
environmental impacts cif the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The
SEPA checklist is nos designed to gather all the impacts. There should he more intensive studies
done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There
are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate.
Mr_ Neugebauer stated the history of she site needs to be revile�ved as far back as possible.. His
presentaLion will focus on the SEPI issues. Only four .studies have been int'Crrporated in the SEPA
checklist. there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the
greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the lona]
region. The moor i�, surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the
northeast corner_ He showed neaps dating hack to 1865 to show historical water flows_ fn 1898 the
Black River still flowed, the Green River Vallcy wivi the White River Valley and thy; Du wni�h
Waterway was still a river, There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as hack Li 1899_ The
entire regional drainage sysketn has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject
property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Jkpartment of Defense
corporation_ This is an important issue. to SEPA because there might have been warLime activity here
with potential contaminarits. Mr. Neugebauer staLes there should have been a Phase 1 ESA_ r_
Neugebauer showed the &velopment pattern in 1990_ it has been forested since the 1940,;. The
oldest trees are about 65 years old.
Mr. Neugebauer showed I,he geomorphology of the ares, The property had been in a melt water
channel from the last. ice age that because the Cedar Diver, Drainage goes both to the southwest and
northeast. The area has tnimy depositional environments for soils. There are *tructurul anomalies in
the area. Therc are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't Perforn-i their
oven. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings.
There is neither engineering gen]ogy nor hydrogcolog ical studie,,,
He ,howe-d a geologic map of the areaand pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two
seismic faults. This niight influence landslide activities. The ITS GS maps show that the closed. fault
zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look
for bend trees and uneven surlace,. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground
movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. Them might he shallow
or slightly deeper ground movement. Ile walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the
school district wouldn't allow it,
TheF.PA documents say there. Etre no structu»e.s on the site, but there are ti)�ehouses and torts. The
Site is vacant but not unused_ The Opponents state there. is no SFPA document, only a report Cram
the City's Environmental Review Comn-ittee.
Mr- Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical aceounts of ownership of the project
site (Page 12). Thcre is an easement for a natural gas pipeline_ There are several other eascment�, for
Various purposes. Mm. Rogers asked about the relevancc of this Lestimorty, Mr. McMonaglc asked
Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer
stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were
conducted, The title report shows potentia] hay. ardous uses in the past. A phase I envirwiniental site
assessment should have bean conducted_ Mr. Neugebauer stated the. applicant hadn't shown how
they were dealing with the City's drainage easement. which is part of the City's drainage system.
M�,_ Rogers noted that the drainage casement was released.
Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or
hyda)geolc)gist studies perfornicd tier this rile_ There isn't enough information. This site could have
fault zones. Also, there is potenthd evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that
these mobile soils roust he dealt. with, which would reiluire further study_ Ile also stated the SEPA
Checklist is wrong because the studies cattle later. He sLated the Checklist was wrong because it
ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the. property.
Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were perfornmd as part
of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an l nviromnental
Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only documenL presented_
The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a sui.Tuna y format.
Another issue is the hydrology and geology nl- the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz
and the Technical Information Rcport Born Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater
saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy
season, Mr. Neugebauer referred in the Shupe report. fie stated the depth to Lhe water table is zero
inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured_ This site needs additional
study to determine how it can be dcvcloped_ An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read
definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the TTSG . The applicant's report
shows so much water there that development without p4Lmps may not be feasible. Groundwater is
also protected from polIulants. It's illegal to discharge polIutants into ground ater. Water moor the
homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands.
Mr_ Neugebauer stated the AES geOtechrtical report is not adequate to satisfy SEYA requirements_ It
stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have- been prepared -
There were inadequate numbers or test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the
surface in winter {8" froth ,urface}, but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was
paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has
geotecluucal critical areas, specifically erosion, site stabiIiLy and ether indicators of shallow ground
creep or slumping.
The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get Clic storm ater dawn below the high water table
and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for gormwawr infiltration on this site. This
may be why the developer has chosen a storniwater v41ilt because a pond won't infiltrate_ Anything
excavated below the curl ace will have, ground watcr issues_ Drainage ditches will be full oI- water. If
you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the. vault will have to be tied down to bedr(xck or
it will float out of the ground. There need to be inLLch mare detailed studies.
The gcotec;hnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present
at the face car the slope, 'There will need to he sore sort of temporary dc -watering_ Mr, Neugebauer
stated the water will come knack and flood basements and keep storrawatcr fi-oin flowing_ Based on
our r view, the -deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is iinpe.rmeable. The AES
report assumes the soil is penricable. The sails promote shallow ground creep and slumping.
Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Re -view Committee report. He believes it is inadequate
and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was dome in too many disjointed stelrs_ On page
8 of AHS, the report saes the wetlands may he groundwater infltLcnced. However, there is no farther
study to deterrnine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There
is a 12" culvert disc;barging storrwater into the wetland_ That's illegal under the Clean Water Act_
They cannot discharge to a point source, Them need to be better studies_
The Enviroruncntal Review Committee report states the project will result in ininirnal loss of
vegeta ion to the site. That's impossible given the current proN�,al. According to the Washington
Mate Departirnent of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here.
The iremoval of existing vegetation will rmiove. a great Ileal of the evapotranspiration on this site.
The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more w�)rried about
views than the 111L)le UF-iticaI WUICr issues.
Mr. Neugebauer started the ERC is hal ,ing its opinions on studies that are too preliiri.inary. The issue
of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will
affect neighbors.
Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA documcnt_ You can't
make a final environmental determination on a document Ihat doesn't exist.
M'! TirnTnOn� asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd Fe ad the drainage report in the application packet. M r.
Neugehauer stated lie had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testuuony to the
drainage report, Mr. Ncu ehauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are.
no .studies for Mu ndw ate.r hydre)logy. There isn't enough informadon to form a drainagc report.
In response to the Examiner, Mr_ Neugebauer stated lic woald have done test pits and boring,
pieinrneter studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there.
We need additional studies to determine where the water really is_ if it's at the surface, the drainage
report is incorrect, The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to he
additional shady. Nlr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater,
A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater al the surface. Utilities cannot be placed
within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would he continuously draining groundwater.
Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 -LoQal Project review Act (RCW 36.70}). Mr,
Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SFPA
provisions [hat provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts, Mr.
Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirr-meats for an EIS.
Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying
property_ He scated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1
environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase 1 ESA
and couldn't speak to whether one exit -d, It is a typical procedure,
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He
responde-d he was slightly fani liar with them_ Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this sire would
typically have an ETS_ He had never seen a development of this size %vith this much conionticm
without an EIS, Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist Juice 2014. Mr.
Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist.
In response to Ms. Rogers, r_ Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr_ Shult�'s report were taken
throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas_ He stated there are high levels of
water throughout the *ite because water tables are flat. He *fated he was not aware of a 303D Iisting
for any water on the site, though all wotlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge,
Mr. Neugebauer stated stormw4wr is being directed to a v+ Cult but it will not treat the stormiyvater for
heavy metals. Ms. Rogers refeiTed to the 2012 AES report, The top of page 2 states the site is
suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures, Mr. Ncugebauer stated they also said additional
studies would be conducted. Ms_ Rogers asked if he understood that detailed constiliction and
engineering review and much more intensive studies will he conducted before final plat_ Mr.
Neugebauer reiterated he fell the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is
now for s reason. It allows for adequate public con-miew. Later phases do iiot,
Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit Inc) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site
isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He slated there is forested land
around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and reads
surrounding the project. He. doesn't know if there arc existing geological or hydrological issues
affecting the existing homes, lick%never he speculates that may he why the areas to the northeast and
east are not developed.
Applicant response
Mr. Devin Jones, Transportation Engineer, TranspQ Group, prepared the traffic report for this
project. Ile also reviewed the public comments and will respond to thein. He's responding
specifically to letters from Mr. Roenieke. and Ms_ Gai-Iough. Mr. Racnicke was concerned that the
traffic counts were conducted in .lune 2011.3, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out
for summer, Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As
gvch, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrolImen t of whool at the time, which is
within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary
schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 P M Peak hour trips. Ms. G arlough claimed
to have taken counts thcaiseIves and compared than to the Tran spo report. Ms. Ggxlcugh stated the
traffic volunie was 30% higher than Transpo's nieasureinents_ Mr. Jones agreed that traffic vol utne�
fluctuate day to day: however. the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low
enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or R at all of the
surrounding intea_sections. The intersecLion operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable
LOS that would require mitigation.
Mr. Jones resfxrnded to another comment about Lhe impact of new residential traffic on school
pedestrian traffic by Mating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning_ The
residence peak happens atter school is out. The prajcctcd increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way
V; 10-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour_ This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute
during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that tithe
period. The school traft1c tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. dost of the project traffic.
won't mix w -Ah whool traffic volumes,
Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues For school pedestrian traffic_ He slated there won't be
much impact hedeause the volunies arc low. AN(), they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th
and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase
in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard.
There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone
area_ They review the accident lags from the City for this location_ Specifically, they reviewed
collision records for SE 10th Street between 13eacon Way SE and Lake Youngs W4y SE, For a four
year period, there were no collisicros reported in this arca. There. is a grade difference bctween
B3 -acon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily trrIffic Vrolumcs over a
,,even day period. 16111 Street Serves about 3,300 vehicles per day_ 4.8 million vehicles traveled along
that section in four years without a single reported collision_ There was one in February of this year,
though that was related to icy conditions, Mr. J011Ci 5tatcd the data does riot support the assertion this
location is a ccIIision prune Ideation. They wi11 also add additional signage on the north side of ] 6th
Street indicating there is an intersection approaching_ The geometries of the roars make it difFicult to
sec the intersection, There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mpli in this area. There
are sidewalks along the route to the wchuol (Exhibit A9, Figure 1).
Mr. Jones re-sporided to a comincnt from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision etre
concerned about long wants nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled intersection 13
in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay staridpoin1. in the AM quid EXI
Peak. The intersection as not originally r viewed. but was added at the City's request. The review
of this intersection was This year while school was in session. Based on the data and the slop control
of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average dclay or less. The delay
wiill not significantly increase with this development looking nut to 2018_ It's currently 13 seconds in
both the AM and PM Peak, The LOS is B now and will ,tay that way. This is an acceptable de -lay
under the 0tv'S standards. Igo change in tra1-fic control is necessary.
Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control
pcnornncl from the school. Mr_ Jones stated he didn't know, 17ut that the use of traffic crossing
boards is a typical occurrence in this arca. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire
traffic control personnel they don't already have.
Mr. McMonagle caked Mr. Jones about the changes from the ou-iginal to the revised traffic study. Mr_
Jones stated that in both cases. there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr.
Mc unagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the roue peirsons in the subdivision would use to gel out to a
minor arterial. Mr. Janes stated that 60% of the Tiffany Panic traffic was assumed to go to the west
and the remainder would go couch. Of the westbound traffic., they assumed the majority of it would
go to SE 16th Stre-et via some route. They would then access FAimonds Avenue. They revised the
study because there was a lot of public cotnirnent ahOut the absence of that intersection in the study,
For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 19th Stzeet to Lakc
Youngs Way, Some would go to SE 16th Stree. others would gra to 1 oya1 Hills, Other traffic would
go to Beacon, Feindale or other route to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. Ile stated SE 16th
Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable_
Mr_ K:M nagle asked Mr. Jones about the developmcnt's proposed roads. Mr. Jones salted the
development will have roads designed to the current standards_
Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her
company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat asse!;sn7erit for the property (Exhibit K. page 40).
Tngether. all the scientims who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She. ]s a
qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique.
Ms- Villa stated she had visited the. project site, She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands
review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment_ They reviewed lists of
species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with
the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically inapped on site, so they looked to see what.
was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and
habitat scientists_ They found nothing specifically lisped for priority protection. They reviewed a
wider arca for noise and stormwater ImpauL-i (Exhibit A, Attachment. 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat
here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. Ys not directly
connected to the Cedar River corridor_ There are trees, but the wildlife has to crc}ss the 60 foot wide
water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, crass u 40slope and then the
Bonneville Power Administration's easeinent to the Cedar Diver corridor. It's discontinuous,
isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use
practiced here.
s_ Villa stated they looked at all pole-ntially regulated species on site ineluding all state and federal
listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and
Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. ;i'fs_ Villa stated there is a great deal or
woodpecker activity. She didn't. ,see nests, but she did see snags_ Pileated woodpeckefs utiliy-e 1,480
acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor, It is possible the woodpeckers are
Foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non -migratory species_ s_ Villa stated Townsend`s
bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insect. The DFW would
require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not
result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these Iwo listed species.
Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed-,pecies_ It"s al hunted species that doesn't have specific
requirements for habitat protcctian.
s_ Rogers asked T1s. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the
wetlands and buffers are protected and off -leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the
wetlands would be better protected than They are now. A typical haffer around a criticaI arca is split
rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out.
Ms, Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize tier Noveniber 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa sunimarized the
letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the
City of Renton's codes_ They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed
species or critical habitats with irtiplementati« rn of best management practices. Protection of
wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with
anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many ether disturbances to wildlife currently occurring
on the site_ With respect to non -game species, they were surveyed in the review_ She reiterated this is
a highly disturbed, isolatcd patch.
Ms. Villa discussed the storaiwatcr filtration system which wilk remove many poll utantx. There is no
direct downslream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Ce-dar River. The plan as
proposed will protect the downstream areas,
Mr- McMonagle stated he didn't anderswid the description of the critical areas fence, Ms. Villa
described what a woodcn, split rail fence looks like.
Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ccologi.q_ Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications, lie
is a sole proprietor who docs habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream
studies. He is a water and sewer district conmaissioncr. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had
visited the project site. He *fated he had, ni�tny tiincs. His work was focused on wetland delineation
and stream identification_ He used the AC.OH, the DOE Wetlands Manual, lie put trwi.wets on the
property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the
wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the
wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and lxater. The southern pipeline
darns the site and prev+ -n is the flow of surface water off site_ They are pocket depressions that are
influenced by perched groundwater on a ,easona] basis, He visited the site during March and June to
view where the water was by season_
W. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he 4lsed the SeaTac rainfall
record_ His review was conducted in MarQh 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches- above normal for
that Lime of year. According to the new,,, iL was record breaking nionth, though he couldn't quote the
recard.
Ms. Rogers asked Illy. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr.
Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundarics. r_ Schultz reviewed these
extra data points at the request of Otak, Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term `aquakc
regime', This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and
didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wdland, though it was a wet time 01- year. Mr.
Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer.
Perched, seasonal high water is commorn. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter
will be protected. In June 2013, there wwi no water at all on site.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. SchuItz whether he' a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz. stated he wasn't. He
is a wetland ecologist. r- McMfmagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz
stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though fie didn't
provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report.
Mr, lay Coglas. of Earth Solutions NW, de*cribed his education and qualifications. He is a
licensed geotechnical engineer- He's been a registered gecengineer since 1998. He is the president of
Earth Solutions NW- Mr- Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had
visited the pre jecL site, He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhihi t K, page 3 3)- Ms,
Rogers asked Mr_ Cog Ias to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer.
M,,. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they
related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Cnglas stated his rale. was initially Loi review the
AES report. His portion ww, review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments.
With respect to the AES report and Borne c) I- the. te�Lirnony h e ° d hearer. the AEA report is standard
practice, The Site is fairly Lu inuderatcly -loping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some
out ash. The level of investigation that was dome as part of the AES report was similar to what his
firth would have done- A lot of time georiechnifA reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt
Merryman authored the AFS report, He is reputable, The report was valid. They adequately
chara.c:terixed on site conditions.
The one thing that stood out to Mr. Cnglas is that AES didn't thnow up any reel flags. There's
nothing in the report that would suggesL major problems- AES was working for the school district
and would have been required to tell Lhe dkt.T4�t if they thought there would be issues for
developnient. All sites are unique, however Lhis is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation
&,, appropriate wiLh tesL pits, If it had been pini, he'd done the same type of review for the intended
use. if this was pi-oposed to he a 25 story office building with throe levels of undcrground parking,
then far mare intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate
for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked
at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions- A loL of what a geotechnical engineer does is
determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have. done a lot trore, htLt the budgeL and Eype
of project didn' L require it- Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity.
Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to ,upport construction and
engineering design at the permit stage- Mr- Cnglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the
project when it corner to assigning aclual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical
report that may or may no include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't
knew yet where they'll need more specific information.
With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He
stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (C'°, 8", or 2'). AES characterizes the
water table at ' in depth during the suininer. it lluetuates seasonally, Theme's nothing in the AES
report s4Lggesting 2' in the suminer. It reports S' in depth_ The thing he wants to point out is this siLe
i5 a perched groundwater condition_ Glacial til] is dense and cenicnted and does not allow vertical
penetration of surface water to depth, That's common. He is not surprised that during wethind
studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressiorial wetland areas. To suggest the
whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater Lable. There are
recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That wale --r then gets trapped in the
impervious layer_ He deals with groundwater on all of his projects, It is not a condition that
precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plat of Tiffany Park or its surrounds
geologically speaking. The Kent Valley i a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level ground,�vater table
that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the
case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across
Tiffany Park is 40'. For c ample, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in
elevation aero�,s the rise would cause most of it to be underwater_ That's not the case, There are seep
environments that are seasonally vet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till
layer. Groundwater ,seepage is irhanagcd during ennstruccinn" it doesn't preclude consuwtion.
lr, Rogers asked Mr_ Coglas lc) discuss managing stroinwater during construction, specifically, will
the storm ater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater
facilities, many of them are vaults. Ile's done hundreds of vaults_ They Iook at excavation. the base,
-,aorage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and back lyll_ Tifran y Park is not an environment where
he would he concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the
beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over bine as the
trapped water is drained. They always put a tooting drain around the vault if they atm concerned the
groundwaler seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't
conQerned about buoyancy here. He ha,� done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case,
there are many best management practices to pr veni the vault from being displaced.
Ms. Rage-rs asked to turn back to the AES report. Slee askedMr- Cog]as to discuss the log reports for
the test pits. Mr. Cc)glas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to e -valuate. soil profiles_ Dotes
suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the, soil,
Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table_ in the Kent Valley. they would call
any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage, In this case, there i� a difference,
-Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Nlr. Coglas described his report and
its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated thein were no slopes that tout the C:isy°s
criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are sodic local, isolated areas that may meet the 40%
criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at swbility. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr_
Co las stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site.
Erosion P, wmething to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA
(now N CS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working
Fields, it was good to know which oiN had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of
erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate eros;k)n arcus, However,
they control cro:qion through many different methodoloeics. The final product is st;ibilized. Erosion
is managed through engineering solutions.
Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Scattle fault i�, 3.7 miles north.
We live in a tectonically active environment. There might he a splay or other features under Tiffany
Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is
sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region_ A mare intense structure or development would
require mare studies, but low density residential development does not. Thcre is a low seismic
hazard here, according to the City.
With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglws slated they had reviewed the coal mine map,,- AFS
also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine
hazards.
Mr. Coglas stater] thuru wu rntx pulential arivcrw environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical
issues.
In response to the Examiner. Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He
was also hired to respond it) public commeras. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with r_
Neugcbauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow goinV to be underwater or flooded- The
groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates anal is uneven, Nlr. Coglas said in these
environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater
seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering
or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated scams. In the Kent
Vallee, pulling water otit would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The
water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report except for the narrative, dnesn"t
document any ohservt-d groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted N veak
groundwater seepage below 8 feet_ it was the dry season.
The Exarninet asked if Mr, Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero
elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but
that is not the case_ However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwatcr
sy-tem might need to change, but it could be feasibility charged, Mr. Coglas stated the notion that
the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test lags in the back of the AES report. r_ Colylas
stated the pits were all test excavaliouls, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pill Oil the
2.2 acres dui. on September 6, 2{]12_ He agreed all of the pits were done on the satire day (Exhibit
A7, Figure ). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licened geologist or
hydrogeologist. They have them on staff, lie reviews these reports and has studied these specialties.
lie's fain iliar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site.
Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be
reviewed and revised to support a specific &velopment proposal. Mn Co lts stated he was retained
in Octobe-r 2014. He was Hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation,
review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if
Mr, Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of
whether he would be asked to going forward. Ile anticipates what he would do on a fallow up report
which woufd include. further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas Mated construction is done year round
right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the
season.
With respect to the vault, the physical din}cn',ion for this vault is eery large, but he doesn't know
exactly how big, His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater
or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will
probable be 1 - IS' deep. They will have 100 tinies more hearing capacil.y than is needed. Thcre wilt
he a ,oil cap. He'll look at the. stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas
showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat, Mr. Cogla� agreed the deepest test pit
was 10.5', thou gli he7s gone deeper ori other projects. The sha]lowesE text pit was 8'. Ile agreed the
only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit #11, to a depth of 85.
Ms, Rogers asked Mr. COglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the
ge-otechnical engineer of record and will wisume that role going. forward.
Mr. Barre Talkingtun, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer fir the project
and de,,igned the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release
Mates there is storm atcr leaving a property and draining on another property_ R is not an easement
with an exact location. His design of the plal addressed the release by larking at upstream drainage
hashes around the property. The drainage ir-lease in the title. is for the Ponderma subdivision, at least
a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that
property on to the project property. The drainage release waL; executed in 1965, before much of the
pitsent developiniont was constructed. The drainage release described) the entire section (640 acres).
It's just. an historical reniainder.
Mr. Talkington stated discharging cle�ui storniwater into wmlands is a common practice. The
drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland.
With re-spect to street widths, the strccts imide the project are narrower than in the. surrounding
corrtrnuniLies, in confornutnce with current city code.
Mr- Talkingson stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is
preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested
from sub -consultant- They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage
design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is u sually a
tine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions-
Ivir. McMonagle asked if Barghauscn Consulting is an engineering firm- r- McMonagle asked
)whether Barghausen wa,, paid hourly €rain the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr- Talkington
stated it wa.�n'I contingent.
Staff response
Mr. Steve J.ce, City of Renton DevelOprrtent Fngineering Manager, described hip position with the
City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files
41}d performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area For the last ten years, Mr. Lee
responded to Mr. Neugebauer',, testimony. He stated Mr. Nt-ugebauer's points were eery general -
Most of the issues r- Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the
Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been
sloughing issues, but they were cawed by deforestation in the early 201h century, earthquakes and
other acts of nature- The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Armv Corp of Engineers (ACOE)-
Them is a hit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the
capability OL- metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five gems, there was an R0 yeaj-
event of 10,0001-, N- in the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't
occur because caf the controls in place by the AC OE and SV ,
Mr, Lee stated Mr. Coglas hay performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in
his review Of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to ether sites in the city. The
steep areas are very small (]5-2W feet long) and do not warrant *lope stability analysis. [overall on
the project xite, the approximate slope is 10% or so, The City does not require additional slope
stability analysis.
With respect to the number Of tc:Rt pit* in the AES study. Mr, Lee stated there were sufficient
numbers of test frits to gauge impacts Of potential gruundwat,er on site. fie would have preferred uo
see a few more, especially in the vault area. flowcver, as Mr, Coglas testified, the City may requil:e
extra analysis, He stated ho does no typicAIy require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of
the process- They may ask for dcclx.r borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this
pr weal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical
information is needed for the walk, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault, Mr. Lee felt the
information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site.. The AFS
didn't mention issues of groundwater on the. site- Therefore, they didn't fee.] the need to require
secondary review- The City determined the AES report was adequate,
Mr, Lee spoke to the strrrrnwater drainage issues. The. only concern the City tray haV+ - is the
placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is
groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that Instance, they will do
a buoyancy calculation to deterniine the. static water volume. A ecrtai n amounI of water will hold the
vaulL dawn. The} need to know how mLich water that is and when it Evill be in the vault.
In re -,;ponce to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lie stated the storm drainage water 4 i11 be pre-treated and will
Prevent polIul,ed water from running off into) the wetlands. The vault will treat all PCIS run off and
discharge to a closed conveyance system. Done of the pollution generating .systems will discharge
into a wetland.
Mr. Lee stated the City of Denton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the
downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that
takes the water. Trey want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDLS permit will be
required for the project. The permit stipulate allowable discharge into a conveyance system, That
will include background monitoring as ixell a,, discharge nionitoring. All of the requiremevN must
be meL before a building permit or construction permits are issued.
Mr. Lie. summzzrized the local, state and fudcral carte requirements. The applicant has complied with
all ct-cde requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable storrmwater
iinpacts_ He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU if they see even a fraction of a movement
in thaL hillside, they 111 know. This is [lie drinking w4ler in the City of Seattle.
In respnns-e to the Examiner. Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along
the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development_ They would discover this instance
during construction_ Tf grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and
test pits. The Examiner asked if the code reguladons would a]law the City to ask for more borings_
Mr, Lee stated it comes down to professional liability us defined in the RC W. The person stamping
the plans is responsible. The City is responmhle FOO life safety only. The engineering staff can require
more borings if they think there might he an issue. If there. arc groundwater issues present, the
proposed vault is the best sotuLion.
In response to Ms. Roger,;, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference betwcon the perched groundwater
table and the suttic, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the sLatic groundwater
le -vel above 9'_ Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could he
adcftressed during construction.
Mr. McMonagle asked it Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school
district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he way. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't
have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated Lhe geotechnical engineering consultant will
gel i4 representative satnpling of Clic site. They acid more bores if they see dissitmilaritics in the site.
Mr. ML; unagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limit d its number of test pits based on budgetary
constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was riot aware of this. With respect to the storm ater, fr, Lee stated
the initiat design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr_ l cMonagle. asked if
the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review_ r_ Lee stated they would
typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical inforrnatioTl
from the applicant,
Ms. Tinimons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. U. ,-
stated it could.
Nis. locale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especialIy the technical studios,,
will be fine-tuned in derail at the time of construction pertnit submittal. These studies are used to
determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development, The appellant has asserled
there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project ha,;
been in review for nine months. The file has been available_ The appellant has been provided with
these studies, includinV the revise -d studies from lune 2011 There were two !Notices of Application
released, Ms. Tininions entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the. revised SEPA
checklist.
With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That Mudy was completed by OLak_
Otak provided (wo separate memo,, in response to revised studies from Mr, Schultz. Otak affirmed
the Final wetland determination (Exhibit A5). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the
applicant. The studies wore revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on -sine. Otak then affirmed all
or the revisions made by Mr_ Schultz. Staff aVrees with Ehe TPWAG appellant regarding tree
preservation for wildlife on site_
With respect to transportation, staff agrees wilth testimony provided by Mr. kne* of Transpo Group.
Yerteet, the 0tv's Consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feol all pownlial impacts are
mitigated.
State agrees with the testimony provided by s. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers.
Applicant Rrbuttal
Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the
requirement of a 15 foot buffer_
Appellant l ehuttal
Mr. Neugehatier stated he was concerned about the storniwater vault filter. There are no
specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He. is concerned
about the maintenance. of the filter, Who will chari e it or maintain it'd
Mr, Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He. stated perched
groundwater doesn't occur on dopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the
contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated ?,one flow is at negative pressure_ Groundwater is at
atmoL,pheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the
groundwater ilunugh pressure gradients, He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He
stated they are using the appliicani's information which is incomplete_ The groundwater will go with
the slope of the ground Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the
upper 30".. the hioturbation cone, the ground is unsaturated_ The water flows through the pore space
and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the
groundwater is and where it's going.
Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the dean Water Act. Nint Sources
cannot be wetland hydrology.
Preliminary Plat
Staff Testimony
1VI.s. Rucale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in IN,-
Benson
heBenson Hill corn munity planning arca in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acmes located in the
R8 roue. Tt is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. Thcre are 1,300
trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Denten School District. It is surrounded by existing single
family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site_
Tfie applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has
received 72 comment letters, Staff was present at a cotrrnunity meeting held by 'ITPWAG and
conducted a separatie meeting in September 2014. On September 22., the Environmental Review
Committee (FRC} issued a M -DNS decision with I1 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed_
The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses,
density, construction mitigation, and others.
The applicant is propONing 97 lots. 'There is a 96 lot proposal Lo al Iow 30B retention of trees. There
wiII be a 5,7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf, The site has five wetlands (three Category
TI and two Category lll). The applicant is prupoL ing buffer reductions with mitigation in the farm of
buffer extensions_ The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th
Street to allow for a smell buffer impact_ Staff supports the requested exemption.
Staff relied heavily on the Cotr pmhensive Plan. There are. nrany significant trees, critical areas,
wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. x_ Timmons described the
Comprehensive Plan pnlicies the staff relied on in their analysis_ The staff attempted to provide
harniony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the
Comprehensive Plan as conditioned.
The Proposal meets most bulk and diTnens&.)nal standards if all conditions of approval are met. The
only iksue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standard, but will be conditioned to
meet the standard.
The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not. comply with the code, but could
with minor rnodilications,
Per the development standard,,, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 1' on-site.
These walls arc outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be
open to terracing o Fwalls to reduce the overall height_
With respect to critical areas, most requirements are nteL with conditions. The applicant has asked
for moditycations, Lo wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised.
There were public comments related LO habitat. The site provides habitat For non -listed species. The
tree preservation plan is *4lfficient to provide liabitat. Based ()fl Lhe provided tree inventory,
approximately 671 trees were excluded from retention calculaLioris. At least 188 trees must be
preserved on site or replaced at a niitiga#ion ratio it) allow 30% tree retention. The applicant
proposes to protect 18 1 trees and niitigate seven others_
In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal cornplie,x if all conditions of
approval are mct. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail.
fn reponse to the Examiner, Ms. Tirilmon� stated there is no applicable street plan in the area, There
were several comments regarding transportation issiies. The praposcd dcvelopmenL would generate
1,000 weekday trips. intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of servke, A
SEPA mitigation measure requirns a neve ,Lop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an
additional condition of approval to a&ress sight distance.concerris. Staff has also recommended
additional signage, Staff feels a� conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitiga#ed.
With respect to residential lots, there arc several tripe stem lots. Staff would like to soc the applicant
revise these lots to comply with cede or provide for shared drivowayN. Shared driveways are
preferred to reduce curb cuts.
Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all
fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students arc provided. Sidewalks
will be constructcd Lea conr ttct to the existing sidewalk system- Staff has recommended a SEPA
mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street.
Adequate provision for wul,-,r and sewer arc provided. The drainage report complies with the 2(1()9
Stormwater Dianeal, Theme will be a vault within TraiQL A. The applicant will need to provide a
downstream analysis for storm ate.r Con veyance.
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated !here will be no alley access. This proposal does
not meet the threshold, There arc two cones on the property.
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for i�-,viscd conditions of approval
along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibit-, AM and AN, respectively), i14-;_ Rogers
asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supporijvt- of the staff
re -port- They have a few areas of disagreement_ Ms. Rogers wanted to cmphasize a point that the
client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District_ This is surplus land
the district cannot mc.
Ms. Rovers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9. and 16-18, They are
requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repo-tition, and non -contested
issues. The City has recently changed it* justification for Condition 3 for the. 15 f«cit buffer, The City
had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies_ They are now turning to
policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are. not an adequate basis to impose
a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 font perimeter hiiffer proposed along with two
pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer,
With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb guts.
They' feel the City will agree with this. revision.
Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must
be Iimited to 4 feel in the front yard and f feet in the hack yard. The City is referencing a conditi(in
related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls_ None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced
in this condition. Even if this particular code were to applyt the measurement of height does not
apply. The walls they have designe4i are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attaclunent
B, are two staff reports I -or current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. 'Title 4
does not liavu standa.nls fou retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a citV handout that
establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining wails. Exhibit
AM, Attachment D is the pre -application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City.
You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the
proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has
recently changed, they are vested to the old code, if tho retaining walls are reduced or eliminated,
wt -'11 end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction
impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining dualI heights.
Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding
an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a speinf1c instance when this will not work.
Condition 9 i the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site -
The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to
extend the street, The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The
City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide erthanced
plantings.
Condition 17 is a typographical error.
C ondition 18 is related to pipe stern lots which are really about the shared driveway issue.
Mr. Garry Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the rintigation impacts the applicant is
providing. His testiniony is s,Ncifically� related to Condition 9. r. Schultz described the 1,331sf of
additional buffer the applicant is proposing.
Ms. Roger, stated W. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms- Timmons
stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3. 5. 6, and 16. in response to the Exa.ininer,
M , Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow theta) to
request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance, These would
be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they
were told they didn't need to.
Mr. Barry Tal kington spoke to the difference hetween cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the
f riixhed lot grade is below the existing grade- The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill
on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered with
reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revved plan reduces the ?1° nigh wall above Tract
and the 18' high wall along the. Cedar River Pipeline. 'That wall will come down Lo 6% The height
from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect %vlie n they submitted. In their
case, the finished grade is the top of the wall,
Mr. Talkington described the limns cin site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc.
The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site- They are knuted by the road access and ADA
standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the
plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to
nia ilnize. lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers- rf they meet the city's conditions,
they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers- iTse of walls allows them to decrease
i mpacts.
For Condition,, 6 and 16, Mr, 'Talkington spoke it) a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the. shared
driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used
U)vt 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City
would also require. Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be
at tin angle to the. roadway which would also change the design of the house to aIIow sine loading of
the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under
which the project vested. The stiff Deport stated Lot 14 had Madecluate frontage. This has been
corrected.
For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16, They
have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. The.y have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17
to comply with etude_ Next. to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract_
For Lots 8-40, the issue is the sarne as I -or LoLs 15-17, They have revised the lots it) allow Lot 38 to
comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement.
For Lots 79 -til. Lot til was added to allow accesx to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access
the shared driveway.
With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared
driveways for three lots ratlicr than the City's suggested four.
Public Testiniony
)tris. gill Jones is a Denton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these
people, testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and wdked therefor years. This is a
valuable resource. The Cedar Diver corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here.
because it is steep. The woxad�, are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the
development is single fair 11y res idence.s, they shouldn't have to provide a butter. The development is
much denser than the existing neighborhoods_ The trees are mature and were prc-existing 30 years
ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Gras,s planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed
an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips_ The hoiiae.s
will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much ;rnaller There will be, no stormwater
area►;. Currently Tiffany 'ark floods in heavy u)rm _ She hay serious doubts about the ability to
provide adequate 4orinwatAcr drainage. She also observed at pileated woodpecker in the woods on
April 14, 2014.
Nb. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he snakes a decision. This is
imlmi-tint_ She has listened to all of the wstimorny. The experts seem to care but they have shown no
concern abou[ what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved_ They are taking
away sonicthing irrcplaccable. Shc feels this piece of property should be preserved for future
generations and all of us_ She asked the Examiner to walk this arca. Also, she has observed pileated
woodpecker nots in Lhese woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development.
This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison theme is it
wa►; cleared. This is about nature and the trec-�_ She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If
the citizens hadn't become aiaive, the fo»est would be clear cut. They have a right as cILirens t() he
heard and care about the onvironmcnt_
Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews For Henley Homes
(Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a coinprehensive review,
Staff Rebuttal
Ms. Timmons Mated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RNIC 4-4-080. This code
a]Iows di-,cretionary authority in the cede to limit the number of driveways accessing the strect, stuff
doe -s not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see Lots 1 i and 78
Io access abutting shared drivcways-
ATTACHMENT S
The Deserve at 'T'if'fany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
(LUA13-11111572, ECF, PP, CA -E)
EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURIN(i HEARING
S Ei:PA Appeal Exhibits
Exhibit A, City cif Re Environmen[a] Analy is (Attaclunents 1-18 are ]i ted
Preliminary Plat Exhibits ] -18 below)
E)diibit B: Environmental (S EPA) iDeiermination of Non -Significance Mitigated
(Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below)
Exhibit C: Environmental Cheekli,,t (June 10, 2014)
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Lyse. Transportation and Commuaity Design
Element)
Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (NoveTri her
-24,2014)
Exhibit F. Notice of Application and Ofl- Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25,
2014)
Exhibit : ConimitmenI for Title Imuraruce
ExEbit H: TPWAG Letter to Denton School District (September 10, 2014)
Exhibit 1: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TP)NIAG (September 16, 2014)
Exhibit J: Henley Appeal
Exhibit K: Healey S EPA Appeal Exhibits
] , a, HEX Staff Recommendation Deport
b. Pre -Application Notes
c. Welland Determination (October 30, 2013)
d_ Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014)
2, Letter Report from Ray Cogla-�
3_ IVSD Resolution No. 0312/13
4.
SPED Letter (No vember 4, 2014)
5.
Drainage Release
6,
Site Maps and Aerial Photos
7,
Airsoft Guns Documentation
.
Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts
9_
COR COW Meeting (September 9..-2013)
14_
Area Nater Well Lags
11.
Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014)
12,
Soundview Consultants Letter, Rachcal Villa
13_
Grete Associates Report, 2008
Exhibit L: TP'vN'AG Appeal
Exhibit M: TWP G SEPA Appeal Exhibits
19.
TrR Report (November 12, 2013)
21. TiA R eport (November 2013)
23, Tree Protection Report (November 13, 20 13)
24, SE,PA Checklist (November 13, 2013)
39. Miscelhmeous Photographs of-SurroLinding Site
40_ Professional Qualification, — Steven Neugebauer
41, NeuVebauer Expert Report (November 17, 20]4)
47. Prc-Hearirig Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (_N ovember 18,
2014)
48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District
Exhibit N: Staff Appeal Analysis (November 19, 2014)
Exhibit O: Henley Pre -Hearing Order Request
Exhibit P: Bearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre -Hearing Order Request
Exhibit (: TPWAG Repc}nse to Pre -Bearing Order Request
Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Ilearing Order Request
Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-licaring Order >eque,�t
Exhibit T: Pre -Hearing Order
Exhibit U, McMonagle Notice of Appearance
Exhibit V, Flaticv Rcsume
Exhibit : Lee Resurne
Exhibit Y: Declaration of Tuunions
Exhibit Z: 7Vor Used
Exhibit AA: Renton Reporter Article (Don ne]Iy)
Exhibit AB: Letter to Editor (Donnelly)
Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs (Donnelly)
Exhibit AD: TPWAG Meme on HEX Authority and Hafver-.wn v_ Relfewwa (November ?8.
2014)
Exhibit AE, t=_".ity of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 1 112$!14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Merno or 11128!14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AG; Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Hui ver on v- Bellevue
(December 7, 2014)
Exhibit GLH: Title Report/Chain of Title (TPWAG)
Exhibi[ AT; Roenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit AJ: Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit A: Timeline
Preliminary Plat Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
IiEX Report
Exhibit 2:
Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 20114)
Exhibit 3:
Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16-.2014)
Exhibit 4:
Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014)
Exhibit 5:
Rcvised Wetland Determination and Response Lettcr (June 3, 2014)
Exhibit 6.
Habitat. Assessment {January 16, 2014)
Exhibit 7:
Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012)
Exhibit 8;
Drainage Report (February 24, 2014)
Exhibit 9;
Traffic impact Analysis (April 23, 2014)
Exhibit 10;
Public Comment Litters: '10.1-10.70
Exhibit 1 I :
AIterilaiive Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 21 14)
Exhibit 12-1
Alterriative Trcc Protection Report (August 27, 2014)
Exhibit 13:
Independent Secondary Review - Traffic
Exhibit 14:
Independent Secondary Review — Wetland (April 3, 2014)
Exhibit 15:
Supplemental Independent Secondary Review — Wetland July 9, 2014)
Exhibit t is
Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014)
Exhibit IT
l labitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12..20 H)
Exhibit 15;
Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 19:
Transportation Concurrency Approval
Exhibit 20:
Renton Trails and Bikew ays Map
Exhibit 21.
Environment Review Committee (EIEC') Staff report
Exhihii 22:
SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014)
Exhibit 23:
Public Mccling Notice
Exhibit 24:
Notice of Application Affidavits
Exhibit AL:
StaffPowerPoint Pre,,ewation
Exhibit AM,
Applicant Letter o F Revised Plat Condi ticn,� (December S. 2014)
Exhibit ACI:
Shared Driveway
Exhibit AP:
Jorne.x, Photographs
Exhibit AQ -1
Henley lionies Reviews from fnljernet