HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Decision_Talbot_Hill_Substation_Current_Limiting_Reactors1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10 RE: Talbot Hill Substation Current Limiting )
Reactors FINDINGS OF FACT,
11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
Conditional Use, Site Plan and Special ) FINAL DECISION
I2 Fence Permit
13
LUA19-000097, CUP-H, SA, ECF, SF
14
15 Summary
16
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) requests approval of conditional use permit, site plan review and a
17 special fence permit application for construction of six 231 foot high current limiting reactors to be
added to the Talbot Hill Substation located at 2400 S Puget Dr. The applications are approved
18 subject to conditions.
19
The Applicant raised two issues at the hearing, both of which are addressed by this decision. First,
20 the Applicant questioned the applicability of impact fees to the project. As identified in Conclusion
of Law No. 9 below, hearing examiners have no jurisdiction at this stage of review to consider the
21 applicability of impact fees. Such jurisdiction can only be invoked upon the appeal of an impact fee
22 assessment, which the City imposes during building permit review. As testified by staff. it is unlikely
that any traffic impact fees will be assessed against this project.
23
The second issue raised by the Applicant was the need for staff recommended condition No.1, which
24 requires the Applicant to submit a revised geotechnical report addendum that addresses infiltration
25
More precisely, the CLRs are 23' and 10.25" in height. All references to the CLR height as 23 feet in this decision
26 should be construed as 23' an 10.25".
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1
I potential. That condition is not adopted by this decision for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact
No. 4C, specifically because the existing addendum already contains a final opinion on infiltration2potentialthatisfullyconsistentwithpriorstatementsoninfiltrationintheApplicant's geotechnical
3 reports.
4 Testimony
5
Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only
6 and should not be construed as containing any findings offact or conclusions of law. The focus
upon or exclusion ofany particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not reflective
7 of the priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made
as to accuracy.8
9 Angela Weihs, Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to Examiner
questions, Ms. Weihs clarified that the height of the H frame is 77 feet and the six current limiting
10 reactors will be 23 feet. Ms. Weighs also confirmed that the code, through site plan review,
authorized the Applicant to swap landscaping required around the perimeter of the pond to an area11southofthepond.
12
Carrie Kriner, Applicant's land use planner, noted that in regard to the first recommended condition
13 of approval requiring a revised geotechnical report to address infiltration, the Applicant has already
submitted an addendum to the Geotech report dated January 29, 2019 with the application that
14 addresses infiltration and that determined that infiltration isn't feasible. The Applicant has also
15 submitted a letter requesting waiver of transportation impact fees since the project doesn't generate
additional traffic.
16
Kelly Purnell, Applicant project manager, noted the project is a stand-alone project and not an
17 expansion of the substation. It's a mitigation project for the BPA electrical system. PSE is
18
connected with them between two substations with two 230 KV transmission lines. When the
Talbot substation was rebuilt BPA did an analysis of their system and realized that closing in the bus
19 tie would cause a potential for their protective equipment to be bypassed by the interconnection.
The CLRs are essentially coils, static pieces of equipment, that mitigate for that potential fault
20 impact. The original project was supposed to be on BPA property but due to space constraints it
was moved to the Talbot site and PSE took over construction of the project. In response to21Examinerquestions, Mr. Purnell noted that a noise investigation was conducted on the CLRs and it
22 was determined they would create almost no noise. The CLRs were built to spec to minimize noise
as much as possible.
23
Justin Johnson, City engineering, noted that traffic impact fees was just mentioned as an FYI within24thestaffreportandstaffdoesn't believe any fees will be required. On the issue of infiltration, the
25 addendum identified that infiltration could be possible in a couple places but at the end of its
summary it concluded infiltration was infeasible. Staff just needs clarification on those conflicting
26 statements for the civil review of the project.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 2
1
2 Exhibits
3 The June 9, 2019 Staff Report Exhibits 1-13 identified at Page 2 of the Staff Report were admitted
into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits have also been admitted:
4
5
Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 15: Google Earth aerial of project vicinity
6 Exhibit 16: City of Renton COR maps
Exhibit 17: Reserved
7 Exhibit 18: Geotechnical Addendum dated January 29, 2019
Exhibit 19: February 4, 2019 letter requesting waiver of traffic impact fees.8
9 FINDINGS OF FACT
10 Procedural:
1 1 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Kerry Kriner, Puget Sound Energy, PO Box 97034, EST 4W,
12
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
13 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the applications on July 9, 2019 at noon in the City of
Renton Council chambers.
14
15
3. Project Description. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) requests approval of conditional use permit,
site plan review and special fence permit application for construction of six 23 foot high current
16 limiting reactors (CLRs) to be added to the Talbot Hill Substation located at 2400 S Puget Dr. The
project site totals 13.4 acres. PSE proposes to install the six CLRs within a fenced enclosure adjacent
17 to the existing Talbot Hill Substation. The proposed CLRs are large, highly customized coils that are
each supported by three insulators. For safety and security purposes, the CLRs will also be installed
18 on elevated pedestals with foundations and enclosed by an eight foot security fence. A new 190-foot
19 long by 85-foot wide gravel pad will be constructed to support the CLRs and the enclosure. The
equipment will be accessed by a new approximately 330-foot long by 15-foot wide gravel access road
20 that will connect to an existing gravel driveway which extends from Puget Dr. SE to the substation
entrance on PSE parcel number 2023059003. Stormwater from the new impervious surface will be
21 split between a new infiltration drywell and the existing stormwater pond that serves the substation.
22 No modifications to the existing stormwater pond will occur. The proposal also includes the
installation of a new three-pole 230 kV H-frame (77 feet, 67 feet. and 77 feet above grade) outside the
23 fenced area to accommodate a reconfiguration of an existing transmission line needed as part of the
substation modernization. The maximum overall height of the new proposed CLRs is 23 feet and
24 10.25 inches. The maximum overall height of the new three-pole 230kV H-Frame is 77 feet. No tree
25
or significant vegetation removal is proposed as part of this project. The project site contains
moderate coalmine hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive slopes (within 50 feet).
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3
I 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:2
3 A. Water and Sewer Service. No water or sewer service is provided for the project and none
is needed.
4
5 B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Fire
Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that
6 sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. No fire impact
fees are applicable to the project.
7
8
C. Drainage. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical
drainage review submitted by the Applicant are consistent with adopted city standards.
9 As compliant with City standards, adequate provision is made for drainage.
I0 PSE's proposed drainage improvements and mitigation is outlined in its Technical
Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 3). As outlined in the report, based on the City of11Renton's flow control map, the site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard area
12 matching Forested Site Conditions and is within the Black River Drainage Basin. The
development is subject to Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 City of
13 Renton Surface Water Design Manual. All core requirements and the six special
requirements are discussed in the Technical Information Report.
14
15 The report states that the existing substation and access road to the south convey runoff
to the existing detention pond on site. The pond was designed in 2016 for adherence to
16 the City of Renton's Area-Specific Flow Control Facility. The existing substation runoff
is captured in catch basins and conveyed to the existing detention pond, which sits
17 immediately south of the existing substation. Surface runoff from the areas peripheral to
18 the existing substation also drain southward. The site for the expansion area also drains
primarily to the south and south west.
19
The proposed improvements would be graded to the south to drain to the existing pond
20 located to the south of the expansion area. The control structure in the existing pond
21 would be modified to control the additional impervious flow from the proposed pad. The
new access road would be constructed at existing grade to maintain existing drainage
22 patterns to the extent possible.
23 The report states that the existing pond has adequate capacity to receive the discharge
from converted surfaces. Following attenuation in the existing pond, stormwater will24dischargetothenaturallocationsouthwestofthesite.
25
Based on the proposal, the expansion project would not contribute any new Pollution
26 Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS) or Pollution Generating Pervious Surface (PGPS)
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 4
1 since the proposed land cover does not meet the definition of a pollution generating
surface. As a result, the report states that the project qualifies for the Surface Area2Exemptionfromtherequirementtoprovideawaterqualityfacility.
3
Staff and the Applicant have an amicable difference of opinion as to whether the Geotech
4 reports submitted by the Applicant have made any final conclusions regarding infiltration.
Admitted into the record are a February 1, 2017 geotechnical report, Ex. 5. and a
5 geotechnical addendum, Ex. 6. It is found that the Geotech addendum offers a final
6 opinion on suitability of infiltration as requested by staff.
7 Staff is certainly correct that the February 1, 2017 geotechnical report did not
conclusively address infiltration potential and in fact expressly deferred that opinion as
8 follows:
9
It may be possible to design stormwater facilities for infiltration, provided
10 the base of the facilities extends to the advance outwash. This may be
impractical considering the grades at the site, but we can provide
1 I infiltration recommendations ifthis appearsfeasible.
12
Ex. 5, p. 7 (emphasis added).
13
However, the addendum was just as clear that the Applicant's geotechnical engineer now
14 did have a final opinion on infiltration as follows:
15 We understand the proposed stormwater improvements will be designed in
16 accordance with the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. In
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 5.2 of the Manual, we
17 evaluated the site for infiltration potential. Due to the presence of shallow,
medium dense to very dense glacial till, it is our opinion infiltration is not
18 feasible on site.
19
Ex. 6. p. 2 (emphasis added).
20
From the quotes above it is clear that the Applicant's geotechnical engineer deferred
21 opinion on infiltration potential in the Ex. 5 geotechnical report and then expressed that
22
final opinion in the Ex. 6 geotechnical report addendum. There is no conflict in the
statements made in the geotechnical report as asserted by staff, there was simply a
23 deferral and then an expression of opinion. This is not to say that the geotechnical
engineer's analysis was sufficiently complete or accurate', because that is not the issue
24
25 ' However, the preponderance/substantial evidence supports the opinion ofthe Applicant's geotechnical engineer that
infiltration is not feasible because there is no evidence contrary to that of the Applicant's expert and no deficiencies of
26 analysis apparent from the record or identified by staff or anyone else.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 5
1 presented by staff. Staff limited their concern to alleged conflict of statements and
absence of final opinion on infiltration. There was in fact no conflict in opinion and a
2 final opinion was rendered in the Ex. 6 geotechnical addendum. For this reason, staff
3 recommended condition No. 1, which requires additional infiltration analysis, is not
adopted by this decision.
4
D. Parks/Open Space. The project is not residential in nature and no park impact fees or5specificparksfacilitiesarerequired.
6
E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate transportation facilities.
7
8 The Talbot Hill substation property is accessed via an existing access driveway extending from
Puget Drive SE (See Exhibit 2). No new ingress and egress points are proposed on the public9street. As part of the project, the Applicant is proposing a new approximately 330-foot long by
10 15-foot wide gravel access road that will connect to this existing driveway. The project would
not generate a significant number of vehicle trips during construction or operation. Daily trips
11 during construction will likely include delivery of materials and commuting of the construction
crew. No additional trips would be required during operation of the substation, except for
12 routine inspections and operation. The proposed improvements will not result in increased
13 traffic to and from the substation site. Impacts to the surrounding area are not anticipated.
14 Public works staff have determined that the proposal will provide desirable transitions and
linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties and that the proposed
15 improvements are adequate to promote safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system.
16 F. Schools. The project is not residential in nature. No impacts to schools are anticipated and no
17 fees are required.
18 G. Refuse and Recycling. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and recycling
facilities. No refuse and recycling facilities are required for the proposal.19
20 H. Parking. Adequate provisions are made for parking. Vehicle traffic to and from the existing
21 substation use include routine inspections and operations. Planning staff has determined that
the substation site provides ample on-site paved space to accommodate parking for
22 inspection/maintenance vehicles.
23 I. Landscaping. As conditioned, it is determined that the proposal provides for adequate and
24 appropriate landscaping because the proposal complies with applicable City landscaping
standards. Staff have found that existing landscaping conforms to the City's landscaping
25 requirements. Further, as outlined below, the landscaping serves as a sight obscuring buffer to
the nearest homes.
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6
1 The project site received Site Plan Review approval in February of 2017 under LUAl6-
000922 in order to deviate from storm drainage facility landscaping standards for a new2detentionpond. A tree removal and landscape plan (Exhibit 10) was reviewed and approved
3 in compliance with conditions of approval for LUA16-000922. The existing stormwater
detention pond approved under this permit is located along the southeastern edge of the
4 existing substation. As an alternative to the required fifteen feet of landscaping around the
stormwater pond perimeter, the Applicant proposed landscape screening southwest of the5stormwaterpond, immediately south of the existing access driveway, and to the west of the
6 stormwater pond outside of the perimeter fence. This screening currently serves to fill in gaps
of existing natural vegetation screening that occurs between the substation and the nearest
7 residential homes approximately 460 feet to the south. The landscaping replaced non-native
plant cover such as blackberry shrubs and non-native grasses.
8
9 The existing sight-obscuring landscaped visual buffer is 20 feet in width in the two locations
and contain a mixture of trees and large shrubs, some of which will mature to 35 feet tall.
10 The visual buffer plantings included Vine Maple, Western Serviceberry, Beaked Hazelnut,
California Wax Myrtle, Silk Tassel and Strawberry Trees planted at 6 feet triangular on-
11 center spacing.
12 In addition, existing tree canopy/vegetation screening is located between the substation and
13 residential uses to the south, which blocks views from the southeast and southwest of the
site.
14
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On
15 June 17, 2019 the City issued a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for the project.
16 Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are
more specifically addressed as follows:
17
A. Views. No impact to views is anticipated. The landscape of the areas is relatively flat
18 with large trees and heavy vegetation restricting visibility from the site. The nearest
19 residential uses are more than 460 feet from the substation. Due to the existing
vegetation, the CLRs and H frame will be of limited visibility to nearby homes and will
20 not impair any views. The proposed improvements would not block view corridors to
shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
21
22
B. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding use. Talbot Substation is an
existing substation that was constructed in the early 1960's. The substation is over 460
23 feet from the nearest residential lot and completely surrounded by transmission corridors.
The proposal includes existing vegetation screening as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 41,
24 which will restrict views of the substation and proposed improvements to the surrounding
25 neighborhood. The proposed improvements are part of the same use that has been on the
site for more than 50 years. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character
26 of the neighborhood.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7
1
C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significant adverse light,2 noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy for residential uses.
3
City staff have determined that noise volumes would not result in an impact to the
4 surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant states that noise from the CLRs will not
exceed existing site noise levels and will be within the regulated noise thresholds. As
5 stated above, the substation is over 460 feet from the nearest residential lot and
6 completely surrounded by transmission corridors. Therefore, any noise generated by the
substation and proposed improvements is anticipated to be absorbed by the surrounding
7 corridors.
8 The application materials do not include a lighting proposal for the CLRs, nor was a
9 lighting plan provided with the application; therefore, a condition of approval requires
that if lighting is proposed, a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit
10 review that demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-075.
11 D. ` Critical Areas and Natural Features. The proposal will not create any significant adverse
12
impacts to critical areas. The only critical areas at the project site are Moderate coalmine
hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive slopes. Staff have found the proposal
13 to be consistent with the City's critical areas ordinance. The staff findings are based
upon a geotechnical report (Exhibit 5), dated February 1, 2017, and an addendum letter
14 Exhibit 6), dated January 29, 2019 that addresses all of the geological hazards. The
geotechnical report includes specific recommendations for: site preparation, shallow and15matfoundations, drilled shafts, retaining walls, earthwork, temporary slopes, erosion and
16 sedimentation control, and the stormwater pond for the substation expansion project
reviewed and approved in 2017 under file number LUA16-000922. The addendum letter
17 recommends that the earthquake engineering, foundation design, and earthwork
recommendations previously presented in the geotechnical report be used for design of
18 the proposed CLR improvements. The report concludes that if recommended measures
19 are taken the project site will be suitable for development. The recommendations of the
geotechnical report and addendum are made conditions of approval. Impacts are more
20 specifically addressed as follows:
21 i.Coalmine Hazards. The report and addendum state that the site is mapped in a
22 moderate coal mine hazard area; however, based on the depth of historical coal
mining activity and the relatively shallow depth of the proposed improvements,
23 there is a low coal mine hazard at the site.
24 ii. Landslide and Sensitive Slope Hazard. The addendum identifies that the site is
mapped in a 25 to 40 percent steep slope area and in a moderate landslide25hazardarea; however, the geotechnical engineer has concluded that the
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8
proposed improvements would not adversely affect the stability of the slopes in
or around the site.
2
3 E. Tree Retention. No tree or significant vegetation removal is proposed as part of the
project.
4
5
Conclusions of Law
6 1. Authority The hearing examiner conditional use permit application qualifies as Type III
review. All other consolidated project applications are Type III or lower. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2)
7 requires consolidated permits to collectively be processed under "the highest-number procedure".
The Type III review is the "highest-number procedure" and therefore must be employed for the
8 conditional use and site plan approval. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the hearing examiner is
9 authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record
appeal to the Renton City Council.
10
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Residential11MediumDensity (MD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R8 zoning classification.
12 3. Review Criteria/Refuse and Recycle Modification/Landscape Variance. A hearing examiner
13 conditional use permit (Type III review) is required by RMC 4-2-0600 for large scale utilities. It is
uncontested that the proposal qualifies as a large scale utility under RMC 4-1 1-210. Conditional use
14 criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D).
15 A special fence permit is required by RMC 4-4-040G1b because the Applicant's eight foot high
proposed fence is more than 6 feet in height. RMC 4-4-040G2 sets the review criteria for special
16 fence permits.
17 The project site received Site Plan Review approval in February of 2017 under LUA 16-000922 in
18 order to deviate from storm drainage facility landscaping standards. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.H1,
major modifications to an approved site plan require a new application. Addition of the CLRs and
19 H frame to the site qualifies as a major modification of the 2017 site plan. RMC 4-9-200E3 sets the
review criteria for site plan applications.
20
All applicable review criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
21 conclusions of law.
22 CONDITIONAL USE
23 The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
24 factors for all applications:
25 RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be
compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,
26 the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9
1 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and
development standards as outlined in Findings No. 14-17 of the staff report, adopted by this2referenceasifsetforthinfull.
3
RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the
4 detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of
the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suitedfor the proposed use.
5
6
5. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal is compatible with
surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure and will not create significant adverse
7 impacts to adjoining properties. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed
use. There is no evidence in the record of any overconcentration of utility facilities in the vicinity of
8 the project area. Google Earth, Ex. 15, shows the vicinity is dominated by single-family use.
9 RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
10 shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
11 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on
12 adjacent property.
13 RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
14 character of the neighborhood.
15 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
16
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking:Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
17
18
8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, City Public Works staff have found that the site is
served by adequate parking.
19
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians
20 and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
21 9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate
traffic mitigation and facilities. At the hearing the Applicant contested the applicability of traffic22impactfeestotheproject. The Examiner has no jurisdiction to consider that issue at this stage of
23 review. Impact fees are assessed at the time of building permit review and determined
administratively. See RMC 4-1-190G 1 a. Administrative decisions regarding the amount of impact
24 fees, if any, can be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to RMC 4-1-190L. City staff testified
at the hearing that it is unlikely any impact fees would be assessed against the project.
25
26
RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 10
1 10. As conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal will not result in any
adverse light, noise or glare impacts.2
3 RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
4 propertiesfrom potentially adverse effects ofthe proposed use.
5 11. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped.
6 SITE PLAN
I RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be
8 in compliance with the following:
9 a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and
approvals, including:
10
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
11 policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community
12 Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
13 ii. Applicable land use regulations;
14 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
15 iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in
RMC 4-3-100.
16
17
12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards.
18
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
19 uses, including:
20 i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
21 particular portion of the site;
22 ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways
and adjacent properties;
23
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities,
24 rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from
25 surrounding properties;
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11
mew
1 iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility
to attractive natural features;2
3
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance
4 the appearance of the project; and
5 vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6
13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the
proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent
8 properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City's refuse
and recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely
9 affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City's
10 landscaping standards, which includes perimeter landscaping to provide buffering to adjacent uses.
The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for
11 the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C.
12 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
13 i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
14 spacing and orientation;
15 ii. Structure Scale: consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian
16 and vehicle needs;
17 iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
18 and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
surfaces; and
19
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance ofparking areas, to provide
20 shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection21ofplantingareassothattheyarelesssusceptibletodamagefromvehiclesorpedestrian
22 movements.
23 14. The criteria quoted above are met. On site impacts are not a major concern since there is no
residence or other space typically occupied by people. On-site privacy is not a concern. The CLRs
24 are in the middle of numerous other electrical facilities typically associated with an electrical
substation and are at a maximum height of 23 feet, which does not stand out amongst the other
25 facilities of the site. Due to compliance with the City's critical areas ordinance, there are no natural
26 features adversely affected by the proposal. Landscaping is in conformance with City standards and
is generally not necessary to soften on-site appearance since the site is only rarely occupied by
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 12
1 people. Perimeter landscaping and 460 feet of separation from the nearest residences assures that
the proposal is compatible with adjacent uses to the extent that the criteria above address adjacent2uses.
3
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
4 users, including.
5 i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
6 rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the
site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties,
7
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
8 including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
9 drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
10 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas,
11
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
12
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
13 buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
14 15. The proposal as conditioned provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the
15 criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E.
16 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
17 of the site.
18 16. The project is exempt from open space requirements.
19
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
20 shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
21 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined
22 in Finding of Fact No. 5A.
23 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
24
18. The City's critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of
25 significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project protects all affected critical areas
as required by the critical area regulations.
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13
1 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.2
3
19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4.
4 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames,for phased projects.
5
20. The project is not phased.
6
SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT
7
8 RMC 4-4-040G2a: The proposed fence improves the privacy and security of the adjoining yard
space;
9
21. The Applicant asserts that the strict application of the fencing height regulations for the
10 proposed electrical utility infrastructure is not practical or safe. The existing substation facility on
the site is surrounded by an 8-foot high barbed chain link fence (See Exhibit 13), which meets Puget
11 Sound Energy (PSE) safety and security standards. The Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA)
12 substation to the east across Beacon Way South has similar fencing for safety and security purposes.
The Applicant states that, to not allow an 8-foot high fence around the Current Limiting Reactors
13 (CLRs) would be inconsistent with existing utility facilities within the zoning district and would
deprive PSE from the ability to safely and securely operate the CLRs.
14
RMC 4-4-040G2b: The proposed fence does not detract from the quality of the residential15environmentbybeingoutofscaleorcreatingvastblankwallsalongpublicroadways;
16
22. The fence is fully compatible with surrounding use for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact
17 No. 5B. Allowing an 8-foot high fence is consistent with existing utility infrastructure fencing on the
site and within the adjacent utility corridor properties. The fenced enclosure will be set back on the
18 property, uphill from residential development in the vicinity, but not directly adjacent to the site. The
19 adjacent property includes an existing regional utility corridor with electric infrastructure and other
underground utilities operated by various providers. The property downhill to the south of the site is
20 also owned by Puget Sound Energy and contains transmission lines, significant trees, and
recreational facilities. This parcel serves as a buffer to the residential community to the south
21
RMC 4-4-040G2c: The proposed fence compliments the environment it serves in an aesthetically22pleasingmanner; and
23 23. The 8-foot high chain-link fence is consistent with existing utility infrastructure fencing on the
24 site and in the vicinity and meets safety and security standards.
25 RMC 4-4-040G2d: The proposed fence does not present a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian
traffic.
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 14
1 24. The project site does not abut a public street. The nearest private street is more than 185.6 feet
away from the proposed fence enclosure.2
3 DECISION
4 As conditioned below, the site plan, conditional use and special fence permit applications meet all
applicable permit criteria for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law. The project is subject5tothefollowingconditionsofapproval:
6
1. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and
7 its addendum.
2. If lighting is proposed, a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit8reviewthatdemonstratescompliancewithRMC4-4-075.
9
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2019.
10
11 C
Phi A.Olbrechts
12
City of Renton Hearing Examiner13
14 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
15
As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
16 applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
17 hearing examiner's decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day
18 appeal period.
19 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
20 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 15
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Talbot Hill Substation Current Limiting
Reactors
Project Number:
LUA19-000097, CUP-H, SA, ECF, SF
Date of Report
July 9, 2019
Staff Contact
Angelea Weihs
Associate Planne
Project Contact/Applicant
Kerry Kriner
Puget Sound Energy
PO Box 97034, EST 4W,
Bellevue, WA 98009-9734
Project Location
2400 S Puget Drive
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision:
Exhibits 1-7: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibits 8-13: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibits 14: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibits 15: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/
Exhibits 16: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 17: Reserved
Exhibit 18: Geotechnical Addendum dated January 29, 2019
Exhibit 19: February 4, 2019 letter requesting waiver of traffic impact fees.
Talbot Hill Substation Current
Limiting Reactors
Hearing Examiner Public Hearing
Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
July 9, 2019
LUA19-000097, CUP-H, SA, ECF, SF
Approvals Requested
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is requesting a Hearing Examiner
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and a Special Fence
Permit for proposed Talbot Hill Substation improvements located
at 2400 S Puget Dr.
The application was accepted for review on May 2, 2019, and
determined complete on May 15, 2019.
Staff received no public or agency comments.
2400 S Puget Dr. (parcel number 2023059066)
583, 864 square feet (13.4 acres)
Zoning District –Residential-8 (R-8)
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation –Residential Medium Density (MD)
Current access for the site is via an access driveway extending from Puget Drive SE, through
parcel number 2023059064 to the south.
Moderate coalmine hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive slopes are mapped on
the project site.
Site Characteristics
Environmental Review
On June 17, 2019, the
Environmental Review
Committee issued a
Determination of Non-
Significance (DNS) for the
project proposal.
No appeals of the threshold
determination have been filed.
Project Proposal
PSE is proposing to install six Current
Limiting Reactors (CLRs) within a fenced
enclosure adjacent to the existing Talbot
Hill Substation.
A new 190-foot long by 85-foot wide gravel
pad will be constructed to support the CLRs
and the enclosure.
The proposed CLRs have a maximum height
of 23 feet and 10.25 inches.
The proposal also includes the installation
of a new three-pole 230 kV H-frame
outside the fenced area.
The maximum overall height of the new
three-pole 230kV H-Frame is 77 feet.
The applicant is requesting a Special Fence
Permit in order to build an 8-foot tall chain
link fence (enclosure) around the CLRs.
Analysis
6
Comprehensive Plan Compliance and Consistency
•The proposal complies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies if all recommended conditions of approval are complied with.
Zoning Development Standard Compliance and Consistency
•The proposal has demonstrated compliance with the R-8 zoning
classification if all recommended conditions of approval are complied
with.
Analysis
7
Conditional Use Permit Compliance
•The proposal complies the Conditional Use Permit decision criteria for
development in the R-8 zone if all recommended conditions of approval
are complied with.
Site Plan Compliance and Consistency
•The proposal complies with the Site Plan Review decision criteria for
development in the R-8 zone if all recommended conditions of approval
are complied with.
Special Fence Permit Compliance
•The proposed fence enclosure complies with the Special Fence Permit
criteria for development in the R-8 zone.
Public Services
•Police and Renton Fire Authority staff indicates that sufficient resources
exist to furnish services to the proposed development. No fire impact fees
are applicable for this project.
•No water or sewer service is proposed or required for the redevelopment
project.
•Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by
payment of transportation impact fees. Currently this fee is assessed at
$6.84 per square foot.
•A preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted with the
application.
Recommendation
9
Staff recommends approval of the Talbot Hill Substation Improvements
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, subject to 2 conditions of
approval:
•The applicant shall submit a revised geotechnical report at the time of
civil construction permit application that evaluates infiltration to its
maximum extent feasible.
•If lighting is proposed, a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of
building permit review that demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-075.
2101 4th Avenue, Suite 950
Seattle, Washington 98121
206.728.2674
January 29, 2019
Puget Sound Energy
35131 SE Center Street, SQE-OTC
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065
Attention: Christopher Russell, PE
Subject: Addendum Letter
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Talbot Hill Substation CLR Improvements
Renton, Washington
File No. 0186-953-06
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
This letter presents the results of GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) additional geotechnical engineering
services for the proposed current limiting reactor (CLR) improvements at the Puget Sound Energy (PSE)
Talbot Hill Substation located at 2400 Puget Drive SE in Renton, Washington. We previously provided
geotechnical recommendations for this project in our revised report dated February 1, 2017 and have
provided geotechnical construction observation services during Phases 1 and 2 of the substation
improvements. This letter incorporates and supersedes a previous draft dated January 25, 2019.
The Talbot Hill substation is located adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Maple Valley
substation, and the two substations are interconnected. We understand BPA has identified potential risks
to their substation equipment in the event of an interconnection electrical fault. The site is shown in relation
to existing improvements in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2.
This project involves constructing six CLRs, one for each phase of the two transmission line interties, which
will act as surge protectors. The CLRs will be installed on elevated pedestals in a new yard area at the
southeast corner of the existing PSE Talbot Hill Substation (approximately 190 feet long and 85 feet wide).
The CLR yard area will be accessed by a new gravel access road. We understand the new yard area will
involve some grading but will not require retaining walls. The existing topography in the area of the proposed
CLR yard is slightly uneven, ranging from Elevation 441 to 445 feet.
Our geotechnical engineering services were completed in accordance with our proposal dated December
10, 2019. Our scope of work included developing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations and
preparing this addendum letter.
Puget Sound Energy | January 29, 2019 Page 2
File No. 0186-953-06
SITE CONDITIONS
Based on explorations completed for our previous geotechnical report, the proposed CLR yard area is
underlain by fill and glacial till. Boring GEI-5 was completed in the area of the proposed CLR yard area.
Subsurface conditions observed in this boring (attached for reference) consist of fill overlying glacial till
overlying advance outwash.
The fill generally consists of medium dense silty sand placed during previous regrading at the site, extending
to a depth of 7 feet. The underlying glacial till consists of medium dense to very dense silty sand with
variable gravel content extending to a depth of 23 feet, where it is underlain by advance outwash consisting
of very dense sand with silt.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Critical Areas
We reviewed the City of Renton online maps showing geologic critical areas including coal mine, erosion,
flood, landslide and steep slope hazard areas. The site is not mapped in erosion, seismic or flood hazard
areas.
The site is mapped in a moderate coal mine hazard area. However, based on the depth of historical coal
mining activity and the relatively shallow depth of the proposed improvements, it is our opinion there is a
low coal mine hazard at the site.
The site is mapped in a 25 to 40 percent steep slope area and in a moderate landslide hazard area. It is
our opinion that the proposed improvements and grading will not adversely affect the stability of the slopes
in or around the site.
Based on our evaluation it is our opinion the soils underlying the CLR yard area have a low risk of liquefying
under the design earthquake event. It is also our opinion that soils underlying the site have a low risk of
lateral spread and earthquake-induced slope movement. The site is approximately 5 miles south of the
Seattle Fault Zone. Based on the distance from the mapped fault, it is our opinion there is a low risk of fault
rupture at the site.
Geotechnical Design Recommendations
We recommend the earthquake engineering, foundation design, and earthwork recommendations
previously presented in our geotechnical report be used for design of the proposed CLR improvements.
Stormwater Recommendations
We understand the proposed stormwater improvements will be designed in accordance with the 2017 City
of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 5.2 of the
Manual, we evaluated the site for infiltration potential. Due to the presence of shallow, medium dense to
very dense glacial till, it is our opinion infiltration is not feasible on site.
MaplewoodGolf Course
SSeeaattttlleeSSeeaattttlleeEEaassttRentonRenton
CMS
P
a
n
d
P
Railr
o
a
d
ST167
ST167 I-405NWA-167 SWA-167NAberdeenCt SE126thPl SESE 19thCtSE 171stPl123rdPlSES 26th Pl
Loga nAveS
LynnwoodAveSEJonesPlSE
S 33rd PlWhitworthCt SSE 166th Pl
114thLn SEIndexCtSE
S 10th StS 5th Pl
110thP lSENewportAve SES22nd Pl
SE21s tCtL
y
n
n
w
o
o
d
Ct
S
E
SE171 s tS tMain Ave SSE 5th
P
l
S 20thPl
115thAveSES 32nd Pl
S 4thPl
HardieAveS
WS 35t h StSmit
h
e
r
sAveSS 2 2n
dCt
1
3
5
th
A
v
e
SE
SE 159th St
SE 166th St
S 17thSt
119
t
h
St
S
E 128thPlSEShe
lt
onAv
e
SESE 29thSt
12
9t
hPl
SE131st
A
ve
S
ESE 173rd St
S 18thSt SE18thPl UnionAve NESE4t hPl
S 21stSt
133rdPlSES3r d Pl
EagleLnS
S E 3rdSt
117thAve SES 31s tSt
Kir
k
landA
v
eSES E 2ndCt
109thAve SESE157thPlBurnet
tPlS
SE 16thPl
SE149thSt
S 3 6th St
S 27th St
S 9th St
SE 22ndPl
SE 2ndPl
SE 21s tSt MonroeAveSEThom
asLn
SE 167t hSt
NE 1stPl
BurnettAveS N 2nd St
HighAve SWhitw
or
t
hAve
SS E 169thSt
SE 163rdSt
SE 3 rd P l131stPlSEWA-167 SSE1st Pl
Edmon
dsWayS
E127thAveSE13
0thAve
SEFir
DrSE 170thSt
NE1stSt
S RentonVillagePl
119thAveSERhodyD
r
CedarAveSS23r
d
St MontereyDr
NE
SE19thSt
S E 8 th D rSE 162nd St
S 2nd St
SE7thSt
HarringtonPlSES 19th St
123rdAve SEHouserWayNS 6th St MillAveSTalbotCrestDrS SE 161st St
H ou serW aySSE 1 59thPlDavisAve SSpruceDr
SE6thS tBlaineAveNE104thAveSELakeAveS
1
2
0
t
hT
e
r
SESE1 6t h St111thAve SEBronsonWayNRosewood
DrSE
Maple
ValleyHwy
N 1
s
t
S
t
Laurel DrFerndaleAveS
E
S 32ndS tS E 4th S tCedarRiverParkDr
WA-515
S 7th St
Jones
A
ve
SS36t h P lCedarRidge
DrSE
SE151st S tSE170thPl
AirportWayS
S 5th St
12
1stAv
eSE105th Ave SES 1 4 t h S t EdmondsAveSEUnion Ave SE113thAve SE128thAve SES Tobin St
S 15th St
NE 2nd St
SE158thSt
NE3rd S t
Pier
ceAve
SE
Morris
AveS
106th Ave SESGrad y W aySE8thP l
S4th St
IndexAve
SE
SE160th St
SE 5th St
120thAveSESE16 5th St
SE 172nd St125th Ave SE132ndPlSEGrantAveS1
2
6thA
v
eSEWellsAveSS 3rd St
RoyalHills DrS
E
P u get
DrS ERainierAveSWilliamsAveSRentonAveSBeacon
WayS
Be
nsonDrSSPuget Dr
SE164th St
116thAve SESE 168th StTalbotR
dS
Maple
ValleyHwy
Be
n
s
o
nRd
Sµ
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
PSE Talbot Substation CLR Improvements
Renton, Washington
BellevueBellevueSeattleSeattle
¨§¦5
¨§¦405
¨§¦90
UV99
UV18
UV509
UV520
UV3
UV167UV16 2,000 2,0000
Feet
Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission.
Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983North arrow oriented to grid northOffice: RedmondPath: \\red\projects\0\0186953\GIS\018695300_F1_VicinityMap.mxdMap Revised: 10/3/2014 ELSite
CED
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
P
I
P
E
L
I
N
E
-
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
NO
T
V
E
R
I
F
I
E
D
431
427
430
4
3
5
43
8436438
438
435
436 43042
5
432
4
3
1
43
0
43
5
440
443
444
445
443445433434435
445
451
4434424414
3
9
425
430
435 435440437435430
435
438
440
438438
435
43
0
430
435
43
7
428 44443042
5
432
432 43
0425
446
4
44
445
445
43
4
436437435433
432
433434
432431
437436435
434
435
436
437
438
4
38
433
440439441442443444443442441440
446447448449450439438437436435
450449448447446444443
447
444
446
447
4
4
8ZZNNYYXXWWVVUUEE
445441442443444
DIRT RO
A
D
441440443 444
445
445
446
446 447448449450
446 447
436435
434433432431430
430429
430
437
435434439440438439
438
440438
436437437436438439441440439438
438437436435434433432431430429428427426425
Proposed CLR
Yard Area
Existing Substation
Access Gate
Access Road to Puget Drive SE
B
e
a
c
o
n
W
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
Approximate Location of
City of Seattle Water Main
BPA Maple Valley Substation
Stormwater
Pond
Unverified Approximate
Location of Underground Cable
to BPA Maple Valley Substation
GEI-4
GEI-6
GEI-3
GEI-7
GEI-5
GEI-2
GEI-1 WWWWWWWWW
W
WWW
W
W
WWWWWFigure 2
PSE Talbot Substation CLR Improvements
Renton, Washington
Site Plan
W E
N
S
Legend
P:\0\0186953\CAD\06\GeoTech\018695306_F02_Site Plan.dwg TAB:F02 Date Exported: 01/14/19 - 15:42 by hmaraNotes:
1.The locations of all features shown are approximate.
2.This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to
assist in showing features discussed in an attached document.
GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content
of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers,
Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.
Data Source: Base received from PSE on 1/9/2019.
Projection: WA State Plane, North Zone, NAD83, US Foot
Boring by GeoEngineers (September 25, 2014)
Feet
020 20
GEI-1
1A
1B
2
3SA
4
5MC
6
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
15
30
28
42
63
6 inches topsoil/root zone
Brown silty fine to medium sand withoccasional gravel and trace organics (loose,moist)
Brown with oxidation staining silty fine to
medium sand (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasionalgravel (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray brown silty fine to medium sand withoccasional gravel (medium dense, moist)(glacial till)
Gray brown silty fine to medium sand (mediumdense, moist)
Light gray brown silty fine to medium sand withoccasional gravel (dense, moist)
TS
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
158
14
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
CEWDrilled
Notes:
DML
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Mini Track Rig
Geologic Drill DrillingMethod Hollow-stem Auger31.5
Rope & Cathead140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
9/26/20149/26/2014
None Observed
443
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)440435430425Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-5
PSE Talbot Substation Improvements
Renton, Washington
0186-953-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-6
Sheet 1 of 2Seattle: Date:11/2/14 Path:C:\USERS\KJANCI\DESKTOP\018695300.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)Page A-1
7%F
8
18
18
67
51
Gray brown fine to medium sand with silt andoccasional gravel (very dense, moist)(advance outwash)
SP-SM
117
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25
30 IntervalElevation (feet)420415Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-5 (continued)
PSE Talbot Substation Improvements
Renton, Washington
0186-953-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-6
Sheet 2 of 2Seattle: Date:11/2/14 Path:C:\USERS\KJANCI\DESKTOP\018695300.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)Page A-2
February 4, 2019
Justin Johnson
Civil Engineer III City of Renton
jtjohnson@rentonwa.gov
Re: PSE Talbot Hill Substation CLR Project
Transportation Impact Fee Dear Justin:
In the November 21, 2018 PreApplication Meeting letter for PSE’s proposed Talbot Hill
Substation CLR Project, there is a statement regarding transportation impact fees: Current transportation impact fee is $4.75/SF for light industrial use. Payment of
transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit.
This impact fee will likely increase in January 2019.
RMC 4-1-190(G)(1) Transportation, Park, and Fire Impact Fees states that the City shall collect impact fees from an applicant seeking development approval for any development
activity in the City, when such development requires the issuance of a building permit or
permit for a change of use and creates a demand for additional public facilities.
The CLR’s will provide surge protection for the PSE and BPA 230 kV transmission systems. Aside from occasional maintenance vehicles visiting the site, no traffic trips
will be generated by this project. The project will not create demand for additional public
facilities. Additionally, PSE equipment is exempt from building permit for transmission
equipment under IBC 105.2.3 Public service agencies: A permit shall not be required for the installation alteration or repair of generation, transmission, distribution or metering or other related equipment that is under the ownership and control of public service
agencies by established right. The only component of the proposed project that will
require building permit review is the fence which will exceed 7 feet in height. A fence
does not create demand for additional public facilities. PSE has not been required to pay impact fees for any of the previous development at the Talbot Hill Substation to date. Please waive the impact fee requirement outlined in the PreApplication Meeting letter, as
per the code, it does not apply to this project.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 425-462-3821 or
kerry.kriner@pse.com.
Sincerely,
Kerry Kriner, AICP
Senior Land Planner