Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTiffany Park SEPA AppealOctober 10, 2014 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Office of the City Clerk City of Renton Renton City Hall, 711 Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Property Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7th St; Renton, WA 98055; Applicant: Henley USA LLC, 11100 Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar Dev Inc.; Wayne Potter; 18215 72" Ave S; Kent, WA 98032 Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. The proposed development of Approximately 22 acres of forested land into 98 residential parcels on 4 King County Parcels owned by the Renton School District Number 403 (as of October 7, 2014) King County Parcel Numbers: 2123059061, 2123059044, 2123059051, and 2123059054 To the City of Renton Hearing Examiner: The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) is submitting the following comments as an appeal to the City of Renton Draft Environmental Review Committee Report (DERCR) Dated September 22, 2014 that includes a determination of mitigated non -significance (DNS -M) for the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572 development. 1.0 OVERVIEW It should be noted that the 14 days allocated for citizens comments is insufficient and that the City seems to have deviated from the standards SPEA procedures for this project in an apparent attempt to avoid the required environmental impact statement (EIS), per RCW 43.21C.031, even though this project has gone on hold twice to develop more information and additional studies that would already be consistent with an EIS. Additionally there are several documents and iterations of site plans that are not provided to the public, and studies (including numerous revisions) that are provided, however, many of these studies have revisions and it is difficult to determine what to evaluate in the review process. It was not until the September 22, 2014 DERCR was prepared that the citizens knew which studies (and reports) the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee would use in the DERCR. This means 18 documents must be reviewed and commented on in 14 days, and the interesting part about the DERCR is that it does not include the November 2013 SEPA checklist as an exhibit, even though this is the only SEPA document the DERCR is using in its SEPA analysis, and this SEPA checklist has numerous incorrect statements and incorrect analysis based on subsequent studies conducted after this document was prepared. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group 1725 Pierce Avenue S. E., Renton, WA 98058 206-715-3785 renton-opposites@comcast.net Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 As the DERCR states on pages 5 and 6: The applicant has submitted the following reports for review and analysis in support of the July 16, 2014 plat plan: • Exhibit 1 ERC Report Page 12 0 Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan (dated July 16, 2014) • Exhibit 3 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (dated July 16, 2014) • Exhibit 4 Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) • Exhibit 5 Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3, 2014) • Exhibit 6 Habitat Assessment (dated January 16, 2014) • Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Report (dated September 28, 2012) • Exhibit 8 Drainage Report (dated February 24, 2014) • Exhibit 9 Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014) • Exhibit 10 Public Comment Letters: 10.1-10.70 • Exhibit 11 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) • Exhibit 12 Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) • Exhibit 13 Independent Secondary Review - Traffic • Exhibit 14 Independent Secondary Review Wetland (April 3, 2014) • Exhibit 15 Supplemental Independent Secondary Review — Wetland (July 9, 2014) • Exhibit 16 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated February 11, 2014) • Exhibit 17 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated June 12, 2014) • Exhibit 18 Landscape Plan (dated July 16, 2014) This is a lot of documents to review and some of these documents are signed and stamped by licensed geologists and engineers which are too complex for the members of the TPWAG to review and comment on, therefore, the TPWAG retained the services of a principal hydrogeologist/engineering geologist from with SNR Company based in Duvall, Washington to conduct a site visit and review the geotechnical and other geologic/engineering documents. This hydrogeologist and engineering geologist (Steven Neugebauer) has over 34 years of experience in the geologic sciences and in environmental studies, including the preparation of SEPA and NEPA EIS and reviewing EISs, EAs, and checklists. After reviewing the SEPA process for this project, Mr. Neugebauer has indicated that the review process should have become an EIS process. This is especially the case with number of additional studies that were required after the SEPA review process began and because of the holds that were placed on this project simply to address the additional information that would have been required by an EIS anyway. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10. 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Nearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 All of the supporting documentation required by the City of Renton would be consistent with the actual EIS instead of a SEPA checklist and having to piecemeal the review process while still have an incorrect SEPA checklist, which is the only actual SEPA document that was prepared. As stated above, the only actual SEPA document is the SEPA checklist and it unusual that the City of Renton did not require an update for the SEPA checklist prepared in November 2013 or for the Geotechnical Report September 28, 2012 considering these studies and documents were prepared before the City required additional studies (which is why the project was placed on hold twice and is why an EIS should have been Page ( 3 required per RCW 43.21C.031 -Significant impacts). Although the DERCR does not discuss the accuracy of the only SEPA document that is officially being used in the decision making process, the TPWAG has included comments on this document. It should be noted that due to time constraints associated with only 14 days to review and comment on over 18 documents, these comments are limited because there was insufficient time to comment on all documents, with these comments focusing on the primary sturdies and reports, the November 2013 SEPA document and the September 22, DERCR document. It should also be noted that per the October 7, 2014 e-mail from Rocale Timmons (City of Renton PM for the Tiffany Park Woods project) states: Comment periods are always held prior to decisions/determinations in order to inform the decision process. Two formal two-week comment periods were held (the second comment period was a courtesy not required by code). The first comment period ended on December 10. 2014 (1 have attached the Notice of Application and comment period announcement). The second comment period ended on August 8, 2014 (I have attached the Notice of Application and comment period announcement). Finally, staff informally held the comment period open to the public to provide comments on the project. As long as comments are received prior to the determination/decision we are able to include in our analysis. Therefore. the City will continue to accept comments all the way up until the close of the Public Hearing. However, comments are no longer able to be considered for the SEPA determination as it has already been issued. Comments received from now on will only be considered when issuing a decision on the Preliminary Plat. The appeal period commenced on September 26, 2014 and will end at 5:00 pm on October 10, 20141s it correct that the appeal would go thru the City Clerk to the Hearing Examiner for a fee of 250.00. Yes, Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Oddly, most of the "mitigation" recommended in the DERCR pertains to development related mitigation rather than actual environmental mitigation. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 This is just one example of the confusion with commenting, it is typically unclear what is to be commented on and there is never any discussion of making comment periods longer. The typical time frame to comment on SEPA documents is 30 days, not 14 days. The City of Renton allocated citizen review time of 14 days makes reviewing and commenting on all of the supporting reports and the actual DERCR draft document virtually impossible, especially when the City of Page ( 4 Renton should have required an EIS. 2.0 SEPA CHECKLIST As discussed above, the SEPA checklist prepared by Wayne Potter with Novastar Development on November 7, 2013 is the only "SEPA" document that is presented and still used in the evaluation process (which was provided for public review). It is unclear why the City did not require a revised checklist at a minimum, but based on the number of additional studies required and environmental sensitivity of the proposed development area (the site), the City should have required a SEPA EIS that would be current and discuss all of the environmental issues in one document will all reports used to make the DNS -M determination, included as an Appendix. The proposed Tiffany Park Woods development is located in Renton, Washington as is shown in Figure 1. It consists of four parcels owned by the Renton School District number 403 (as of October 10, 2014). This property was "purchased" in the early 1970s as public property for the eventual construction of schools. It has been used as an outdoor recreational area (like a park) for over 3 decades and over the 3 decades, citizens have constructed trails, forts, swings, bicycle tracks, and made other improvements. In fact the site is STILL public property but is being treated as if it were private property (e.g., the TPWAG requested permission from the school district 403 to have independent wetland studies conducted and was denied permission from the School District). Regardless, this site has been used by 100s of citizens for over 3 decades for recreation and these citizens have made improvements on this site. Additionally, there is a drainage easement on the site (listed in the preliminary Title Report) that is not discussed in any document that the TPWAG or SNR reviewed. The SEPA checklist that is still being used by the ERC only included five studies that were used to prepare the SEPA checklist: 1. Storm water Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated November 2013 2. Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences dated September 28,2012 3. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by the Transpo Group dated November 2013 4. Wetland Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz Wetland/Forest Ecologist dated October 30, 2013 5. Tree Protection Plan and Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated November 13, 2013 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Only one of these documents is still used in the DERCR, the Associated Earth Sciences Geotechnical Report, which is discussed in the next section. This means that there were more than 18 other studies and reports prepared for the "SEPA determination" after the SEPA checklist was prepared, yet the SEPA checklist was never updated. The site is approximately 22 acres in size and is the only undeveloped, forested area in this portion of Tiffany Park. It is surrounded by high density residential developments (Figure 2) and provides the only significant green space for the residents in the area because it IS public land and this is one of the reasons it has been Page 15 used recreationally for decades. Figure 1 - Site Location on Google Earth July 2013 Air Photograph Figure 2 - Site on May 2013 Air Photograph from Google Earth Professional, 2014 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 16 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 The subject property is located in the southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 23 North, and Range 5 East; (Figure 3) the northwest property corner (at SE 181h Street) is located at latitude 47.4639951 and longitude - 122.175224°, at an approximate elevation of 399 feet above mean sea level (ASL). Figure 3 — From the King County Quarter Section Map, SEQ Section 21, T23N, R5E Based on the SEPA checklist, the proposed development (site or subject property) consists of ninety-eight (98) parcels with a total area of approximately 22 acres (Figure 4). The site is generally dipping to the west, northwest at an approximate average slope of 5%, with areas that have slopes up to 35% (e.g. at the dead end of SE 18th Street and elsewhere). It should be noted that the number of lots has continued to change, with the current number of lots either being 97 or 96 (this is unclear). The site is undeveloped, in 1990 (Figure 5 — July 1990 Air Photograph of Subject Property and Vicinity, from Google Earth Professional, 2014) and continues to be undeveloped, school district reserve land. However, just because the land is not developed, does not mean that the land was not used and that improvements were not made by citizens. However, the site was completely cleared (as was the surrounding area) in 1936 — Figures 6 and 7 and it is unclear what the site was being used for in 1936. However, it is possible that activities included those that dealt with hazardous materials, which is not discussed in any environmental document (no Phase I ESA was conducted, however, the DERCR indicates that there are no environmental impacts on the site, even though no studies were conducted). Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 1 Figure 4 - From the Preliminary Plat Plan Figure 5 - July 15, 1998 Air Photograph from Google Earth, 2014 The 1860 Land Office Map (T23N, R5E) that includes the subject property and vicinity (Figure 8) and the 1895 USGS topographic map of the Tacoma Quadrangle (Figure 9) suggest that there may be structural anomalies associated with the proposed development site. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 17 I.ECt�y, Figure 5 - July 15, 1998 Air Photograph from Google Earth, 2014 The 1860 Land Office Map (T23N, R5E) that includes the subject property and vicinity (Figure 8) and the 1895 USGS topographic map of the Tacoma Quadrangle (Figure 9) suggest that there may be structural anomalies associated with the proposed development site. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 17 Page 18 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Figure 6 -1936 Air Photograph of Site and Vicinity — High, from King County iMAP, 2014 Figure 7 -1936 Air Photograph of Site and Vicinity - Mid, from King County iMAP, 2014 The geomorphology of the area (Figure 10) suggests that the school district property (site) may be on a relict landslide or affected by a fault; possibly a splay of the Seattle Fault Zone that is located approximately 3.9 miles north of the site (Figure 11). During the site visit, hummocky ground and bent trees were observed; these features are often an indicator of ground movement through surface creep or deeper slumps (landslides). The September 28, 2012 Associated Earth Science studies (the report does not state when the field studies were conducted) suggest that there are two deposits on this site (the test pit logs were interpreted by Mr. Neugebauer), recessional outwash deposits overlying glacial till, with the till typically being encountered at about 4 feet below the ground surface. The overlying recessional outwash deposits have higher interpreted hydraulic conductivity which means that unsaturated zone preferential flow will be present at the outwash/till contact, which can create conditions that are conducive to surface creep and shallow slumping. ;i�1dvSSL1kY5AG+.'Sa "v�'rd:+ai30.CuP1. rt..waestid:,uY. .-..s-s.`GS,..s3.m':w`�:6vfiL.iLiSUcv....i.R...:e;:. ...aw5 ..,cu'Wi.waex...w^i. -.., aH.wk...a_::x,Y.... W..vai':a.a2.S,� iddCa.-x'T tlC>M'nik:�, Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 The zone of bioturbation (usually present within 40 inches of the ground surface) creates macropores which can quickly transport surface water to the contact with the glacial till and the overlying recessional outwash deposits. This water combined with any impacts to the isostatic equilibrium of the slope (such as the toe of a slope being cut off) can result in surface creep and shallow slumping, Figure 8 - From the 1860 Land Office Map T23N, R5E (Section 21) -u�Qti SUBJECT PROPERTY 7777 161 Figure 9 - From the 1895 USGS Topographic Map of the Tacoma Quadrangle, from Google Earth Professional, 2014 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 19 Page 110 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 ¢, 4 mi f d� t i `�r.... Gk�Je Ekmp,l�ry SC1gol - - 3 SCARP/RELICT RIVER BANK?J e . Figure 10 - Terrain Map from Google Maps, 2014 Figure 11 - July 2013 Air Photograph with USGS Holocene Fault overlay, Google Earth Professional, 2014 The 1895 USGS topographic map of the Tacoma quadrangle suggests that a wetland area was located south of the proposed development. This wetland is in a linear alignment with other isolated water features to the west and east, with the trend being northwest to southeast. It is very possible that these features are sag ponds associated with earthquake faults that have impacted the structural geology of this area. Unfortunately, there are no new geologic maps for this area that were created after 2006 when LiDAR became available. Without UDAR or actual field studies on the subject property being conducted for the geologic map, the surface geology is based on older studies that have been conducted in the mapping area. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Regardless, the geomorphology of this area strongly suggests that recessional outwash deposits will be present on the surface (as does the Associated Earth Sciences September 28, 2012 test pit logs). Figure 10 (Terrain Map) strongly suggests that either a landslide scarp or relict river bank is present to the west of the site. If this is a relict river bank, it is highly likely that the surface deposits are recessional outwash deposits overlying glacial lodgement till. Mullineaux, D. R, 1965 (Figure 8) suggests that there are several structural features in the vicinity of the site, including the Renton anticline (folding). The geologic map suggests there is a wide range in geologic ages Page 111 for the deposits in the vicinity of the site, which also suggests that structural controls are present (folding and faulting). This map does suggest that glacial till deposits are present on the site, however, based on Mr. Neugebauer's interpretation of the geomorphology, Associated Earth Sciences (AES) test pit logs, and a review of boring and well logs for this area obtained from the department of Ecology most, if not all of the surface deposits on the site are more likely to be Vashon Age recessional outwash deposits (river deposits), which are most likely fluvial deltaic deposits associated with the draining glacial lakes, which generally drained to the west, south, and southwest before the Juan de Fuca plate began to melt and float. 1/ Xa. r Figure 12 - From the 1965 Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, Mullineaux, D. R., USGS These delta complexes became relict glacial meltwater channels that are currently occupied by underfit rivers in what is identified as river valleys. These river valleys are actually remnant deltas that were cut when the glacial lakes drained after the Juan de Fuca plate no longer blocked the Strait of Juan de Fuca (this is similar to the Oso area where there are numerous relict landslides present because the delta materials are inherently unstable without the water they were deposited in). Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 What this means is that the geology, especially the structural geology in this area is complex, as is the ground water hydrology. However, the AES studies were preliminary and did not include the level of study to identify potential geologic hazards and issues with near surface ground water hydrology as is stated in all of the wetland reports prepared for this site. All of the wetland reports state that the water table is present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface in all Page 112 wetland areas. The water table is, as it sounds, a flat surface that covers a large area (even perched aquifers), however, there is no conclusive evidence that perched ground water conditions are present because no piezometers were installed to make this determination The potential impact to development (and to ground water quality) is not discussed anywhere, even though the wetland reports have been accepted and the AES studies indicate that ground water can be present to the ground surface on this site. If this is the case, there will be a lot of problems with grading, installing underground utilities, and with foundation drains. More importantly, the proposed vault could have problems staying submerged because if the ground water rises to the ground surface, the vault can float and rise above the ground surface. Because both the wetland studies and the AES studies state that the ground water table has been identified to be at the ground surface (AES simply states it will be present during the rainy season), because of this, detailed hydrogeologic studies should have been conducted to determine if development is feasible and to identify any potential impacts to ground water quality. Regardless, the following subsection provides the TPWAG comments that are specific to the ONLY SEPA document provided (and used) by the DERCR. 2.1 COMMENTS FOR THE SEPA CHECKLIST Item 11 on the SEPA Checklist states: Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The project involves the subdivision of approximately 21.7 acres of land encompassing four tax parcels into 98 single-family detached homes. As part of this development there are three sensitive area/open space tracts consisting of approximately 2.8 acres (or 13 percent of the site) which have been set aside to preserve existing wetlands and significant trees. There will be approximately 3,700 linear feet of public roadway (with utilities) constructed to serve the proposed lots. This is completely incorrect. Subsequent studies indicate that there are five wetland areas and the area required for significant trees (or planting) has changed as has the number of lots (there will be 97 to 96 lots). This checklist should have been updated, because review by citizens is difficult when the only SEPA document that was included in the DERCR review is inaccurate. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Item 1(c) (Earth) states: What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Please reference the soils report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences Inc. The AES studies are report were preliminary and were limited based on budget (the Renton school district Page 113 hired AES) and state that additional studies are required. Page 1 of this report states: This report is intended to provide a general geotechnical feasibility analysis of the site. This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 J2. Interestingly the DERCR stipulates that this report will be the sole geotechnical document that will be used to develop this site, as stated on page 7: The geotechnical report does include specific recommendations in order to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts including., site preparation, temporary cut slopes, site disturbance. Winter construction, structural fill, foundations, pavement recommendations. Therefore, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Engineering Report (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: 1. All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.. dated September 28, 2012. The AES report will be discussed in the next section. Item 1(d) states: Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 114 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 SNR observed hummocky ground and "bent' trees throughout this site (Figures 13 and 14), especially on steeper slopes. Bent trees and hummocky ground are typical indicators of ground movement. There were no comments in the AES report regarding these conditions nor were any studies conducted to determine if ground movement is occurring on the site (the geotechnical study was preliminary and was limited due to budget constraints). Figure 13 - Trees on the left are bent which is common where near surface ground creep is occurring The geologic map, the geomorphology of this area, the proximity to the Seattle Fault Zone (a splay may pass through the site), the stratigraphy, and the subsurface hydrology strongly suggests that the site is a candidate for shallow ground movement and shallow slumps. However, this was never addressed with additional, full scale geotechnical and engineering geology studies. The grading plans assume that there is no near surface ground water or slope stability issues, however, all wetland reports indicate that the ground water table was present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface in the wetland areas when the studies the studies were conducted and the AES report states that ground water will be much higher during the rainy season. Also, as stated above, the simplest method to suspect unstable slopes is to look at the trees and walk the ground surface. If bent trees are present and a hummocky surface is present, it is very likely that ground movement has and probably still is occurring. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Figure 14 - More bent Trees Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 115 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Item 1 (d): Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A preliminary grading plan has been prepared for this project and a copy has Page 16 been attached. Based on this plan, we anticipate that the on-site structural grading to balance is approximately 95,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The on- site strippings (topsoil) is estimated at 22,000 cubic yards and will either be spread on the finished lots and/or exported off site. At this time no import or export of material is expected. Some additional grading will occur on a lot by lot basis during the home construction phase. Again, this is incorrect. The DERCR indicates that 70,000 cubic yards of material will be moved and 21,000 cubic yards of material will be stripped. Also, it is very likely that stripped materials will be exported offsite. Item 1 (g): About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The total on-site impervious surface (roadways) will be approximately 4.65 acres (or 21 %) of the site area (21.7 acres). Based on a maximum impervious area per lot of 75 percent, we have estimated a total impervious area (for 98 lots with an average lot size of 5,200 square feet) of approximately 8.75 acres or 382,255 square feet. This suggests that there will be 13.45 acres of impervious surfaces on the site, it is unclear how many impervious surface acres remain after all of the changes that have occurred since the November 2013 SEPA checklist was prepared. However, considering approximately 4.5 acres of wetlands and retained trees will be present this only leaves about three acres that are not impervious that are not associated with a critical area or with tree retention and proposed buffers. This suggests that during a normal year with approximately 40 inches of precipitation, would generate approximately 44.83 acre feet on the site each year, with most of the precipitation occurring from November to April. There are 325,851 gallons in an acre foot. This does not include runoff from yards and other cleared areas, which will be much higher than the current forested conditions. The current runoff from the forested site is estimated to be less than an acre foot due to evapotranspiration (up to 75% of precipitation is removed by this) and infiltration (up to 20% can be removed via infiltration), Item 2 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During plat and home construction, emissions from construction equipment and vehicles will occur on a temporary basis. When houses are completed there will be emissions generated from automobile/service truck traffic. At this time there are no known quantities. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The site is surrounded by existing single-family developments that generate typical residential emissions; however, there are no known emissions that will affect this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: All equipment will be in compliance with EPA standards for engine emissions, and during construction watering will be provided to control dust particles. Fireplaces will be used in accordance with requirements of the Puget Sound Air QualitY Board (this is actually the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency http://Www.pscleanair. org/. Per SEPA requirements, this should be compared to a no action scenario (comparable to existing conditions). The TPWAG did not observe any studies or reports that addressed air quality relative to existing conditions nor does the SEPA checklist address deadheading trucks for the offsite transport of soils that cannot be used on the site or the impacts to air quality after the development is completed such as wood smoke from fire places, automobiles, emissions from furnaces and gas water heaters, etc. It is still unclear what air quality impacts will be present during construction and after construction because this has not been quantified. Item 3(a). Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. There are three isolated wetlands located on site. Please reference the wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz. This is incorrect, there are five (5) wetlands present site and the report prepared by Schulz is not even provided because other studies (by Schulz and Otak) have been conducted since the SEPA checklist was prepared. Additionally, there is no discussion regarding the drainage easement on the site (shown in the Title insurance report). Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 117 Comments for the City of Renton Nearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Additionally, if, as ASE, Schulz, and Otak suggest that a water table is present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface, there will be surface water flows all over this site during the winter because if ground water is present at the ground surface, the soil becomes impervious. Item 3 (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 Page 118 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Plat and home construction will occur within 200 feet of the on-site wetlands; however, all construction will be located beyond the required buffers as established by City Code. Page 10 of the DRECR states: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 15), there does not appear to be buffer adjustments on the north and east sides of Wetlands 8 and C to take into account the "lock + load walls" proposed. It appears that portions of the walls may fall within the proposed final buffer edges. If this is the case, the plans should be revised to avoid these impacts, or to accurately show the permanent buffer impacts. This strongly suggests that some activities will occur within buffer areas. Item 3-3 Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. This is incorrect based on the grading plans that would include filling ephemeral drainage networks on the site and the drainage easement on the site. Item 3-4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. There is a significant amount of storm water that is diverted onto the site through the drainage easement and from other sources. The proposed development would obviously divert these flows and the natural ephemeral drainage system. Item (3-6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 No This is incorrect. Storm water will be generated on the streets and this storm water becomes point source flow in the storm water system (including unlined drainage ditches). Additionally, because no Phase I ESA has been conducted it is unknown if any potential contaminants are located on this site (or other potential environmental impacts). However, per the Clean Water Act Section 502, point source waters is considered to be polluted: Page 119 (6) The term "pollutant" means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial. municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This term does not mean (A) "sewage from vessels" within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (8) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources. (14) The term "point source" means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation. or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture. (19) The term "pollution" means the man-made or man -induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water. This is especially the case, if as stated in the wetland reports and the AES geotechnical report, that the ground water table is at or within 7 inches of the surface, suggest that waters of the State can be impacted by contaminants of concern that cannot be removed by a screen. It also suggests that ground water quality can be impacted due to the presence of ground water at or within 7 inches of the surface. It also suggests that there could be much greater quantities of storm water generated on the site during the rainy season when ground water is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface (saturated soils at the ground surface are impervious). Item 3-b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 There will be no groundwater withdrawn as a result of this project (public water will be provided); however, stormwater will be collected by a gravity drainage system and discharged to an on-site storm pond. The stormwater collected will be discharged at an approved rate into the existing storm system within S. E. 181n Street. Also, some stormwater collected from the house roof drains will be Page 120 discharged into the on-site wetlands to provide a re -charge during storm events. This is incorrect. Wetland hydrology is ground water hydrology which means that storm water will be discharged directly into ground water in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State codes such as the Underground Injection Control Permit (UIC) requirements when discharging directly into ground water. Additionally, as previously stated, all wetland reports and even page 4 of AES report (this does not indicate an elevation that AES believes the ground water will reach), indicate that ground water will be present at higher elevations during the rainy season. Two different wetland studies indicate the water table was at or within 7 inches of the ground surface (the water table is equivalent to an unconfined groundwater aquifer). Based on the fact that all hydrologic studies indicate that at or near surface ground water is present, it would be very difficult not to impact ground water on this site when the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface. Detailed hydrogeologic studies should be conducted as would have been required if an EIS was required by the City (as is required by RCW 43.21C.031). In reality an EIS should have been required when the City put the project on hold to allow the developer or property owner fulfill all of the necessary studies at once and to insure that all SEPA documents are actually current and accurate. This also states that a storm pond will be used when in reality a storm water vault will be used (this creates its own problems because of the required maintenance (storm water vaults must be cleaned yearly and any screens or filters many need to be serviced or changed more frequently — if these facilities are not maintained correctly, they will allow all pollutants to enter the 60 inch storm water system and reach waters of the United States (Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to the Cedar River). Item 3-c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Storm water will be collected by a series of catch basins and conveyed by stormwater pipe to the on-site storm pond (detention) designed in accordance with the City of Renton Storm water Design Manual (Addendum to the King County stormwater guidelines). The system will also convey drainage from roof and footings drains to the storm pond. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 This statement is incorrect. A storm water vault will be used and these vaults require a lot of maintenance to operate correctly. Who will provide this maintenance and be responsible for the water quality leaving the storm water system on this site? Item (3-c-2) could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Unlikely. As discussed above, all storm water will be collected and conveyed to an approved detention pond. Furthermore, the storm water will pass through a Page 121 storm filter vault (water quality) prior to discharge off site. This states that there will be a storm water detention pond and then to a "storm filter vault". It is unclear if a storm water pond will be used on this site, however, if it is and is unlined, there can be direct discharge to ground water when the ground water table is at or within 7" of the ground surface. Direct discharge of storm water to ground water is prohibited by State Health Codes, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act unless a UIC permit is obtained (and this requires a high level of treatment before the water can be discharged into ground water). Item 3 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any., As previously discussed, all drainage will be collected and treated (storm filter vault) prior to discharge (for more detailed discussion see the attached storm water TIA prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.). See comment above. Item 4 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Upon completion of the project, all vegetation within the developable portion of the property (approximately 18.6 acres) will be removed/altered. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: As required by code, we will be preserving 30 percent of significant trees (and/or) providing mitigation with replacement trees) and protecting the on-site wetlands. The existing trees to be saved (approximately 102 trees) and wetland/buffers total 2.8 acres, or 13 percent of the site. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 This is incorrect based on the DERCR, however, it is unclear how many acres will be cleared (this checklist suggests that 18.6 out of 22 acres will be cleared). The habitat studies did not include more than one day of field studies therefore it is difficult to determine what species are actually present, especially migrating species. The studies would need to be more comprehensive if an EIS were required. However, citizens have provided the city with photographs of sensitive species, such as the Pileated Woodpecker and other species, such as Page 122 bobcats, Figure 15 - Male red -breasted sapsucker, note the numerous woodpecker holes; Pileated Woodpecker have been observed on the Site Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Additionally, the habitat studies did not focus on vegetation, including species that are state heritage plants (not detailed plant studies were conducted by any botanists). These studies would be required by an EIS. Item 5 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Page 123 There will be approximately 2.8 acres of undisturbed open space provided to help mitigate urban wildlife. There is a known migration route to the northwest, however, it is unclear why this site is not a migration route or what will happen with the wildlife that uses the site as a habitat when approximately 18 acres are cleared (and about 4 acres of isolated wetlands will be left along with a buffer area 10 —15 feet wide)? This could drive the wildlife into the surrounding neighborhoods and can present a danger to the existing residents in this area (and their pets) when the existing forested habitat is destroyed. The site is connected to the northern forested area (that bounds the south side of the Cedar River) which suggests there is a corridor to the river from this site. Additionally, it is likely that more deer will be hit by automobiles when the habitat is completely removed. Item 7 — Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Unlikely. However, during construction there is always the risk of an accident involving construction equipment and diesel fuel or gasoline during house building. Considering a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has not been conducted and the site was completely cleared in 1936 it is unclear how anyone knows if any hazardous wastes are present in the soils or the ground water on this site. It is unclear what will happen if contaminated soils or ground water are encountered, A Phase I ESA should have been conducted as part of the SEPA process and is required for an EIS. Item 8 - LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant undeveloped land. Adjacent properties include single-family residential and public utility right-of-way. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. A vd ocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014, Renton, WA October 10, 2014 No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Page 124 Not applicable. This is incorrect. The site is public land at the time these comments were prepared (owned by the Renton School District) and has an extensive trail system that was constructed by and maintained by local citizens, improvements, and there is apparently a structure located on the site. The site has been used as a green space and recreational park area for at least 3 decades as is shown in the following photographs. Figure 16 - Fort constructed on the site Almost all structures that are related to forts are for airsoft war games conducted often (players come from as far away as Puyallup, maybe farther). As previously stated, this site is a major source of recreation for local citizens and others in the area. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Figure 17 - Fort on site, note bent trees and hummock appearance of ground surface Figure 18 - Banked curve for bicycles local citizens destroyed about five of them to reclaim the trail Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 25 Page 126 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014, Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Figure 19 - Structure located on Site Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Figure 20 - Geocache on the site Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 127 Page 128 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014, Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Figure 21- Another fort on the site Figure 22 —Another "fort" on the site on one of the main trails Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 r - iie fi r Figure 23 - Another Fort on the site along one of the trails Figure 24 Another fort on the site on one of the trails Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 129 Page 130 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014, Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Figure 25 — Cleanup activities conducted by citizens at the large "rope swing" wetland in the northwest part of the site Figure 26 - Another fort on one of the trails Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 It is unclear what the site was used for in the early 1930s and earlier, however, it was completely cleared in 1936 and it is unclear if agricultural activities were conducted on the site. Item 8 (h). Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. There are isolated wetlands located on site. For additional information Page 131 please review the wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz. Also, the site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area, This is incorrect, page 2 of the AES document (which is referenced in the SEPA checklist) states: The site contains areas that meet City of Renton definitions for Geotechnical Critical Areas. Item 8 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: As part of the preliminary plat process, the project will be reviewed in accordance with the R-8 development standards which are compatible with the surrounding property The site has been historically, and still is, public property and is used as a green area/park for recreational purposes. It is estimated that 100s of nearby residents use this area recreationally. The proposed development would permanently remove the site from public use and recreation. The impact fees for parks will not replace the recreational element of the site and will impact 100s of local citizens. The existing land use is recreational and site provides habitat functions, surface water controls, and the site is linked to forests to the north which are a corridor to the Cedar River. This has not been addressed in ANY document but would be required to be addressed in an EIS. Item 10 h �.nt"' iAws in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 132 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: All future homes within the project will be subject to the City building design standards at the time of building permit review. This is incorrect. The site is currently a 22 acre forest with diverse vegetation and habitat functions. The view is that of a forest with a relatively dense understory that includes numerous species of shrubs, herbs, and grasses. The view will be substantially changed when the 18.5 acres of the site is cleared, not to mention the loss of a major recreational area and the impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and surface water in this area (remember there is a deeded drainage easement on the site). Item12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The subject property is located within 655 feet of Tiffany Park Elementary School which provides some limited recreation opportunities. Also, the site is within 1,000 feet of Tiffany Park which is connected by pedestrian pathways to the Tiffany -Cascade Connector open space and to Cascade Park. Also, abutting the east and south property lines are the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way and Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way that provide walking trails used by the public. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Each Building Permit will be required to pay a parks impact fee of $530.76 to reduce or control recreational impacts. This is incorrect. As previously stated the site has been used by 100s of local citizens for over 3 decades for recreational purposes. Citizens have built trails, forts, and bike tracks, and have made other improvements on this site including what appears to be a structure. The current estimate is that 97 lots will be developed, but it is unclear how $47,768,40 can provide equivalent recreational uses for the 22 acres of public property used by 100s of local citizens that will be removed permanently by the proposed development. This should have been assessed and would have been assessed if an EIS were required. Item 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. Page 133 c, Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. The SEPA checklist is incorrect, As stated above, the site is a major source of recreation in this area and has been for at least 3 decades. There is geologic scientific equipment located on the site (see Figure 20). There have been no studies for state heritage plants identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as shown on htt ://wwwl .dnr.wa,gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.htnil, It is clear that no research was done to determine if any sensitive plant species or state heritage sites are located on the site, which would be required by an EIS. Item 14 - Transportation b. Is site currently served by public transit? if not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. This incorrect, the April 2014 Transpo Group document states: The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the study area. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123rd Avenue SE, each near the project access points. It is clear that there are several metro routes in the vicinity of the site. This is one of many errors that are present in the environmental checklist that the City has adopted and has used in the environmental review process to make a DNS -M determination. The use of incorrect information and the complexity of having several iterations of the same documents that also contain errors or do not fully address the site conditions and the environmental impacts (including ground water) is inconsistent with the purpose of the SEPA review process. It is apparent that the City did not want to request an EIS for some reason, however, it is clear that an EIS must be conducted to correctly address all environmental impacts the proposed project will have. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 3.0 CONCLUSIONS The SEPA process for the proposed Tiffany Park Woods project is convoluted, including two holds, the City is adopting a completely incorrect SEPA checklist, and the City apparently purposely avoided an EIS that is called for (based on all the required additional studies, that include several iterations) by WAC 197-11-600 and RCW 43.21 C.031. Page 134 The City of Renton has adopted Chapter RCW 43.21 C in in the Renton Municipal Code: Per RMC 4-9-070 (C): The City of Renton adopts as its own the policies and objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended (chapter 43.21C RCM. As these comments discuss, the City's review deadline of 14 days to complete a review and comment on all documents that have been prepared for this SEPA process, including addressing the City's DERCR (and sorting through numerous iterations of the same documents) and to prepare this appeal document is unreasonable. The City has a much time as it wants because it can simply impose another hold, however, the citizens do not have this authority. Because of 14 day time limits and a lot of confusion over what process the citizens were required to use to comment on the SEPA related issues (comments or an appeal), the TPWAG could not include detailed comments for all documents that were reviewed by us and Mr. Neugebauer. Therefore, additional comments are provided for each report reviewed in PDF format (using Adobe Acrobat 10 or higher) on the CD that accompanies this report, The comments can be viewed by simply clicking on comments. The included CD includes all documents reviewed and a PDF copy of this document. The SEPA process is supposed to be a process that protects the citizens and the environment, however, the citizens comments have been ignored in the past and have gone unaddressed. This is the last chance the citizens have to have their concerns addressed and to insure that the SEPA process is fully implemented and accurately reflects the environmental impacts. The City of Renton apparent did not check the documents it requested for accuracy, consistency, errors, or applicability (such as the September 28, 2012 AES geotechnical report) and the ERC apparently does not include a licensed geologist, engineering geologist, hydrogeologist. The AES report clearly states that it is preliminary, the first paragraph of the report states: This report is not intended to be used as the sole -geotechnical input for any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 J2. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 The DERCR states (page 7) Therefore. staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provided [AES] Geotechnical Engineering Report (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences. Inc., dated September 28, 2012. The AES report (page 1) states: Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared This indicates that the scope of work was limited by scheduling, but more importantly budget. Per Mr. Neugebauer (SNR Company), AES was not provided the scheduling and budget to conduct the level of study warranted for this site, especially when the wetland specialist(s) indicate that the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface. This warrants a significantly enhanced study for slope stability, impacts to ground water quality, impacts to the developed homes, and impacts to all unlined storm water facilities on the site. Additionally, if the ground water table is located at or within 7 inches of the ground surface, it is very likely that a buried storm water detention vault will float and erupt from the ground without adequate anchoring. Had AES had the budget and time, it would have noted the bent trees, hummocky ground surface and would have identified the recessional outwash deposits that are typically present up to 40 inches below the ground surface and that the contact of the recessional outwash deposits and the glacial till is creating a potential rupture surface, especially when this contact is prone to relatively high amounts of unsaturated zone preferential flow. This can lead to unstable slopes especially if the toe of the slope is disturbed as it has been on the site, which is apparently leading to near surface creep and shallow slumping. There are numerous problems with the SEPA process for this project and it is clear that the City should have required an EIS when it placed the project on hold on December 16, 2013. Instead, the City created a process that was fragmented which impacted citizen input and made the review process very difficult. Additionally, by refusing to acknowledge that the proposed project does pose significant environmental impacts; including impacts to existing recreational uses of the site (for at least 3 decades), which was NEVER addressed in any document suggests a unbiased, thorough, scientific and social review was NOT conducted. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 135 Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 It is clear that the City should have requested that an EIS be conducted and that all supporting documentation must be thorough, unbiased, consistent, and current. Additionally, for projects this complex and with this much documentation, the citizens must be provided at least 30 days review time which is consistent with SEPA protocols in RCW 43.21C which the city of Renton has adopted into its code. The TPWAG is submitting this appeal document as a request to the Hearing Examiner to deny the City's Page 36 request for a DNS -M and to require the City to follow the correct protocols for SEPA studies and documentation for complex sites where significant environmental impacts are present (the City has acknowledged this by placing two holds on the project and requesting more information, but the City did not focus on many of the SEPA requirements and all proposed mitigation pertains to construction activities rather than addressing environmental impacts. It is clear that the existing documents, and this document support the need for an EIS and that more citizen review time is necessary for citizen review time and commenting. Sincerely, TIFFANY PARK WOODS ADVOCACY GROUP Renate Beedon President SNR COMPANY Steven F. Neugebauer Principal hydrogeologist/engineering geologist Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division (Ct�* 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 �❑ ash l�d'Check No. -9 6 9 Description: Funds Received From: ❑�py Fee Appeal Fee Receipt Date r � ❑ Notary Service Z'S1 Amount $ �, �� Name �rl t Address City/Zip t .�too City Staff Signature Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 October 10, 2014 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Office of the City Clerk City of Renton Renton City Hall, 71h Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON OCT 10 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 9 RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Property Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7th St; Renton, WA 98055; Applicant: Henley USA LLC, 11100 Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar Dev Inc.; Wayne Potter; 18215 72" Ave S; Kent, WA 98032 To the City of Renton Hearing Examiner: Attached is our appeal to the City of Renton Draft Environmental Review Committee Report (DERCR) Dated September 22, 2014 that includes a determination of mitigated non -significance (DNS -M) for the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572 development. Thank you for your consideration. & "t '� -.0, J_-'_ Renate Beedon, President Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group