The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTiffany Park Appeal - CairncrossCAIRNCROSS&H EM RE LM ANN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 524 2nd Ave, Suite 500 office 206 587 0700 Seattle, WA 98104 fax 206 587 2308 www.cairncross.corn October 10, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY Renton City Clerk's Office Bonnie Walton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON OCT 10 2014 g RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICECH& �/Ia �t l ai Cubit Re: Appeal of Determination of Nonsignificance - Mitigated for The Reserve at Tiffany Park (Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP CAR) Dear Ms. Walton: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the applicant for preliminary plat approval of "The Reserve at Tiffany Park," City of Renton project number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP CAR (the "Plat"). Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code sections 4-9-070.R and 4-8-110.E, Henley files this appeal of the City's Determination of Nonsignificance -Mitigated, published on September 26, 2014 ("MDNS"). A copy of the MDNS and the $250.00 filing fee are enclosed. Standing Henley is the applicant for approval of the Plat and, therefore, has standing to bring this appeal pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E.3. Henley is aggrieved and adversely affected by the City's MDNS decision because the mitigation conditions included in the decision impose unlawful obligations on Henley, which restrict Henley's ability to develop the Plat. Errors of Fact or Law in the Record Henley's appeal is focused on Conditions 1, 3 and 6 of the City's MDNS. The Hearing Examiner should reverse Conditions 1, 3 and 6 of the MDNS or, in the alternative, modify them as described below. {02658621.DOCX;9 } nrogersi-cairncross. com direct: (206) 254-4417 rolsenna cairncross com direct: (206) 254-4418 Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 2 A. Condition #1. As currently drafted, Condition 1 requires that earthwork "shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012." The geotechnical recommendations in the 2012 report lack the specificity and detail that will be contained in the geotechnical report Henley's geotechnical consultant will prepare prior to construction. Consequently, Henley requests that the Hearing Examiner modify Condition 1 to state: "All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 29, 2012, or consistent with the recommendations of the final geotechnical report submitted before construction." (Revisions underlined) B. Condition #3. RMC 4-4-130 at subsections H and C state that 30% of significant trees shall be retained in residential developments but that dead, diseased, or dangerous trees, and trees located within proposed rights-of-way can be removed without a permit, and that trees located within critical areas and their associated buffers are not counted toward the City's 30% requirement. MDNS Condition 3 requires the applicant to "retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers." Thus, Condition 3 simply restates the existing requirements in RMC 4-4-130.1-1 and .C. RMC 4-9-070.M.3 requires the City to consider "whether other local, State, or Federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts" and the City's ability to attach conditions to a proposal under its SEPA authority is limited to those "conditions [that] are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse environmental impacts." (Emphasis added). Additionally, in RMC 4-9-070.M, the City adopted the requirements of WAC 197-11-660(1)(g), which states that if the City's "development regulations .... provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action..., the GMA county/city shall not impose additional mitigation under [SEPA]." Here, RMC 4-4-130.1-1 and C adequately mitigate the asserted environmental impacts related to the "plants" element of the environment. By merely restating the requirements of RMC 4-4-130.1-1 and C, Condition 3 is redundant and fails to comply with RMC 4-9- 070.M.3 and WAC 197-11-660(1)(g). The Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition 3 or, in the alternative, the Examiner should modify Condition 3 to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated August 27, 2014, which the City has confirmed demonstrates "compliance with the 30% tree retention requirement." See Draft Environmental Review Committee Report, dated September 22, 2014 ("ERC Report") at pg. 14. {02658621.DOCX;9 ) Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 3 Condition 3 should be modified to state: "The applicant shall be required to comply with the approved Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated August 27, 2014." C. Condition #6. The State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21 C ("SEPA"), the Renton Municipal Code, and state and federal law limit when and to what extent the City can attach mitigation conditions to a project without the applicant's consent. Among other limitations, in order for such conditions to be valid, they must be reasonable, and they must be necessary to mitigate environmental impacts that are significant. Conditions that are not necessary, not reasonable, or that do not mitigate significant impacts are unlawful. Additionally, any mitigation condition imposed must have a nexus (i.e., it must relate to impacts resulting from the proposed action) and it must be roughly proportional to the impacts. The City's errors and violations of these and other specific standards include the following: 1. The City erred because it has failed to show that the aesthetic impacts resulting from the Plat are significant. RMC 4-9-070.13 states that the "City of Renton possesses the authority to deny or condition actions in order to mitigate or prevent probable significant adverse environmental impacts." (Emphasis added). The City asserts that Condition 6 is intended to mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from the Plat, but the City has failed to show that the aesthetic impacts will be significant given the current buffers provided by the 60 feet wide Mercer Island Pipeline Right -of -Way to the northeast, the 100 feet wide Cedar River Pipeline Right -of -Way to the South, substantial vegetated tracts to the west and north, and the 10 -foot vegetated buffers that are provided along the northeast portion of the Plat. The City erred by failing to show that the impacts, with these planned buffers and tracts already in place, will be significant, requiring the imposition of additional buffers. By not showing that the impacts will be significant, as required by the City's SEPA policies, the City erred by imposing mitigation conditions, including specifically by imposing Condition 6. 2. The City erred by relying on the City's landscaping standards in RMC 4-4-070 as justification for imposing Condition 6. In the ERC Report, the City states that the "landscaping requirements (RMC 4-4-070) are intended to, among other things, address: needs for an increase in privacy and protection from visual or physical intrusion; the maintenance and protection of property values; and generally the enhancement of the overall image and appearance of the City and quality of life for its citizens," but "a specific standard for small lot single family development abutting less intense (larger lot) single family development is not explicit in the code." In other words, the Code contains no requirement for installing landscape buffers between single family lots developed at different intensities, much less the same intensity as is {02658621.DOCX;9 } Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 4 the case here. Yet, now the City is trying to require such a buffer through its SEPA substantive authority. In fact, not only does the Code contain no such buffer requirements, but the Code specifically exempts from its buffer requirements the areas in the Plat where the City now is attempting to impose them. Condition 6 states that a minimum "15 -foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided." The landscaping standards of RMC 4-4-070 expressly do not apply to "yards not abutting a public street or private street or shared driveway." RMC 4-4-070.C.2.b. The perimeter portions of the Plat that would be subject to Condition 6 do not abut (i.e., share a common boundary with) a public or private street or shared driveway. Consequently, the City is attempting to impose the landscaping requirements on the Plat in areas that are expressly exempt from those requirements under the City's Code, as provided in RMC 4-4-070.C.2.b. Even if the Plat's perimeter areas were not exempt from the RMC 4-4-070 landscaping requirements, the requirements in RMC 4-4-070 for visual barriers between less intensive zones and uses still would not apply because: a. The landscape requirements for visual barriers between less intensive zones applies only (i) when nonresidential development abuts a residential zone, (ii) when a residential multifamily zone or use abuts a less intense residential zone, (iii) when a commercial zone or use abuts a residential zone, or (iv) when an industrial zoned lot or use abuts a residential or commercial zone. See RMC 4-4-070.F.4. Consequently, the landscape requirements do not apply when the two sites are both in single-family residential zones, as they are in this case. b. Even if there was a requirement for a landscape buffer between two differently zoned residential parcels, the zoning for the Plat and the neighboring properties is the same, so there is no need to require a buffer between two residential zones with the same zoning designation. C. The buffer requirements in RMC 4-4-070.F.4 apply to properties that share a common property line with the adjacent, differently zoned or used properties. But none of the nearby residential properties shares a common property line with the proposed lots in the Plat. Some residential properties to the west do share a common property line with certain tracts (not lots) within the Plat, but those portions of the Plat (Tracts A, B, L, and M) already contain substantial vegetation at average depths much greater than the 15 -foot buffer the City attempts to impose through Condition 6. Consequently, in the areas where a common property line with adjacent neighbors does exist, the City lacks a reasonable rationale for imposing the additional buffer. {02658621.DOCX;9 } Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 5 d. Even if the visual barrier language from RMC 4-4-070.F applied, those requirements are for 10 -foot and 15 -foot barriers, not a "minimum" 15 -foot buffer as stated in Condition 6. The City lacks authority to impose the "minimum" 15 -foot buffer under RMC 4-4- 070, and, even if it had some authority, it is an arbitrary and capricious decision to require such a large buffer in this case. A 10 -foot buffer already is planned for the majority of the perimeter of the Plat, as well as even deeper buffers where vegetated tracts are located. In addition to those planned buffers, the 60 -foot buffer provided by the Mercer Island Pipeline Right -of -Way to the northeast and the 100 -foot buffer provided by the Cedar River Pipeline Right -of -Way to the South provide an even greater buffer between the Plat and the adjacent residential properties than is typical for residential developments in the area. The city's attempt to use its SEPA authority to impose an additional 15 -foot buffer lacks a reasonable basis in its Code and in the facts. 3. The City erred because Condition 6 is not reasonable. The City's SEPA substantive authority is contained in RMC 4-9-070.M. RMC 4-9-070.M.3.c states that the "City may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as [t]he mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished." (Emphasis added). Contrary to these requirements, Condition 6 is not reasonable for several reasons, including but not limited to: a. As mentioned above in paragraph 2, the landscaping buffer standards do not apply here. b. Even if the landscape standards did apply, the City's stated goal of 50 percent sight obscuring landscaping or landscape plus fencing can be achieved through far less burdensome means. See enclosed letter from Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated October 7, 2014 (describing how the buffers previously planned for the Plat will meet the City's desired sight -obscuring standard). A condition is not reasonable if it is far more burdensome and restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired mitigation. C. There is a minimum 10 -foot buffer/or large vegetated areas already planned for the majority of the perimeter of the Plat. In fact, all of the proposed lots that directly abut adjacent property lines have some sort of buffer. In addition to those planned buffers, the 60 -foot buffer provided by the Mercer Island Pipeline Right -of -Way to the northeast and the 100 -foot buffer provided by the Cedar River Pipeline Right -of -Way to the South provide an even greater buffer between the Plat and the adjacent residential properties than is typical for residential developments in the area. So, even if some impact could be shown, the City's request for additional buffers is far out of proportion to, and unreasonable in light of, the environmental impacts, if any. {02658621.DOCX;9 } Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 6 d. The ERC Report confirms that transplanted trees from within the plat will satisfy the City's 30% tree retention requirement. Henley proposes to use transplanted trees to enhance the planned 10 -foot buffer areas in order to create the visual buffer desired by the City. Condition 6, however, appears to require the planting of new trees, which the City does not allow to count toward the 30% mitigation requirement. Because the City appears to be requiring an unnecessary buffer width and unnecessary new tree plantings in addition to the 30% of existing trees that Henley already plans to retain, the City's imposition of Condition 6 is excessive and not reasonable in light of the aesthetic impacts of the Plat. e. Condition 6 is not reasonable because it is based upon the false premise that the Plat is developed at a greater intensity than the surrounding properties. The City asserts that Condition 6 is required to mitigate the "aesthetic impacts of the proposed development on less intense neighboring properties." The City's use of the word "intense" could mean that the Plat is developed at a greater density (i.e., number of dwelling units per acre of platted land) than are the neighboring properties, or it could mean that the lot sizes within the Plat are smaller than the lots on the neighboring properties. The City's imposition of Condition 6 is not supported by either of these two meanings of the word "intense." With respect to density, the Plat is being developed under R-8 zoning, but will have a developed density of no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. This developed density is far below the allowed density for the entire area. If the City is requiring a 15 -foot sight -obscuring landscape buffer in order to mitigate the aesthetic impacts on less intense properties, then the Plat should not be required to contain a buffer because it has a developed density that is substantially less than that allowed. With respect to lot size, if the City's concern is that the lot sizes in the Plat are small in comparison to the neighboring lots, then Condition 6 also does not resolve the City's concern because the 15 -foot buffer would cause the developer to take that area out of the back of the lots, thereby creating smaller lots. If the City's aesthetic concerns are with small lot development, then imposing Condition 6 does not alleviate that impact, it worsens it by forcing the developer to create even smaller lots. For these reasons, Condition 6 is not reasonable in light of its asserted basis, intended purpose and effect. 4. The City erred because Condition 6 is not necessary to mitigate the specific probable adverse environmental impacts identified in the MDNS. The City's SEPA substantive authority defines the limits of the City's authority to impose mitigation conditions without the applicant's consent. The City's SEPA substantive authority is contained in RMC 4-9-070.M. RMC 4-9-070.M.3.a states that the "City may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as [s]uch conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable {02658621.DOCX;9 } Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 7 adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to [RMC 4-9- 070]." (Emphasis added). The City has stated that Condition 6 is necessary to meet the goal stated in the City's landscape standards (RMC 4-4-070) of achieving a 50 percent sight -obscuring landscaping or landscape plus fencing standard. As discussed above, these landscape standards do not apply to the Plat. Additionally, Condition 6 is not necessary to achieve the City's desired mitigation. Instead, the City's 50 percent sight -obscuring standard can be achieved through alternative and less burdensome means. See enclosed letter from Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated October 7, 2014 (describing how the buffers previously planned for the Plat are sufficient to meet the City's desired sight -obscuring standard). Condition 6 also is not necessary because the property already includes buffers between the Plat and adjacent single-family lots. Those buffers include the 60 -foot buffer provided by the Mercer Island Pipeline Right -of -Way to the northeast, the 100 -foot buffer provided by the Cedar River Pipeline Right - of -Way to the South, and deep buffers provided by vegetated tracts to the west and north. Because the City's goal can be met through use of buffers that will not further restrict the development of the Plat, Condition 6 is not necessary to mitigate the identified impact and it should be reversed. 5. The City erred because the applicant has already provided a 10 -foot buffer and other tracts above and beyond what is required in the City's applicable development regulations which provide adequate mitigation for the purported environmental impacts. 6. The City erred because Condition 6 is an unlawful exaction, which violates the nexus and rough proportionality requirements of state and federal law. 7. Condition 6 violates the Growth Management Act, Ch. 36.70A RCW and Local Project Review Act, Ch. 36.70B RCW because the City's regulations govern landscape buffer requirements and explicitly exempt from those regulations the areas on which the City now seeks to impose buffer requirements through SEPA conditions. Additional errors may be discovered during the appeal process via testimony and evidence provided by the City. However, the above list summarizes the primary issues involved in this matter. Request for Relief For the reasons described above and to be described at or prior to the hearing on this matter, the Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition 1, or, in the alternative, the Examiner should modify Condition 1 to state: "All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 29, 2012, or consistent with the recommendations of the final geotechnical report submitted before construction." {02658621.DOCX;9 } Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk's Office October 10, 2014 Page 8 The Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition 3 or, in the alternative, the Examiner should modify Condition 3 to state: "The applicant shall be required to comply with the approved Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated August 27, 2014." Finally, the Hearing Examiner should reverse Condition 6. The remainder of the MDNS should be affirmed. Procedural Issues Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E.7, other than the appellants, the City, and Henley, "No other persons shall be allowed to testify unless serving as a witness to one of the parties." For the sake of efficiency, testimony and comments from non -appellants should not be allowed during the hearing. Henley requests that the hearing follow the format provided in RMC 4-8-110.E.9 and be "organized so that testimony and other evidence can be presented efficiently." Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.C.4 and the City's fee schedule, a check in the amount of $250.00 is enclosed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let us know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Nancy Bain ridge Rogers Randall P. lsen NBR:RPO:kgb Enclosures: MDNS, Appeal Fee, letter from Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. {02658621.DOCX;9 } Denis Law Mayor .� City of. `; September 25, 2014. Community& Economic Development Department ... C:E."Chap" Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of. Ecology Environmental Review Section . PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA: 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD. DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed•'by the Environmental Review Committee_ (ERC) on September 22,".. . . 2,014: SEPA DETERMINATION: ' Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: The Reserve 'at Tiffany Park PRO.JECT,NUMBER: , : LUA13-001572, ECF, PP CAR • 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. Appeals to.the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110:and info rim ation.regarding the•appea I process.may be obtained from.the City Clerk's Office,* (425) 430-6510.. -Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details: if you.have questions, please call rrie at. (425.) 430=7219.. For theEnvironmental RevieW Committee;, gocale.Timmons ..Senior Planner Enciosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Depa rrient,of Natural Resources Larry. Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office ' Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler;`office of Archaeology & Hlstorlc Preservation Rentoh City Hall . 1055 Soutfi Grady Way; • Renton, Washington 98057. rentonwa:gov i "'City of k7F1 F Of ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: The Reserve at Tiffany Park PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR LOCATION: SE 18" St and 124" PI DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL REQUESTING SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 97 -LOT SUBDIVISION (96 LOTS WITH A 30% TREE RETENTION ALTERNATIVE PLAN). THE 21.66 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE (R-8) ZONING CLASSIFICATION, A SMALL PORTION OF THE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-4 ZONING CLASSIFICATION. ALL PROPOSED LOTS WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-8 ZONING CLASSIFICATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE DEAD END OF SE 18TH ST BORDERED BY THE CEDAR RIVER PIPELINE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND MERCER ISLAND PIPELINE ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THE 96 LOTS WOULD RESULT IN A DENSITY NO MORE THAN 5.70 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. LOT SIZES WOULD RANGE FROM 4,500 SQUARE FEET TO 8,456 SQUARE FEET WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 5,399 SQUARE FEET. IN ADDITION TO THE 97 (96) LOTS, 13 TRACTS ARE PROPOSED FOR SENSITIVE AREAS, TREE RETENTION, STORM DRAINAGE, ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, AND OPEN SPACE INCLUDING AN (EXISTING) VEGETATED BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY 10 -FEET IN WIDTH. ACCESS TO THE SITE WOULD BE GAINED FROM SE 18T" ST WITH SECONDARY ACCESS EXTENDED FROM 124TH PLACE SE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITH 1,305 SIGNIFICANT TREES AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO RETAIN 147 TREES (188 TREES WITH A 30% TREE RETENTION ALTERNATIVE PLAN). THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A WETLAND REPORT, DRAINAGE REPORT, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY, ARBORIST REPORT, HABITAT DATA REPORT, AND INDEPENDENT SECONDARY STUDIES FOR TRANSPORTATION AND WETLANDS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION. THE SITE CONTAINS THREE CATEGORY 2 WETLANDS (WETLANDS A, C, AND, D) AND TWO CATEGORY 3 WETLANDS (WETLAND B AND E). THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CRITICAL AREA EXEMPTION FOR THE EXTENSION OF SE 18TH ST THROUGH PORTIONS OF THE BUFFER ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND E. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IM?ACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON OCTOBER 21, 2014 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ® o Cityof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR APPLICANT: Henley USA LLC PROJECT NAME: Tiffany Park Reserve PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted a proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97 -lot subdivision (96 lots with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The 21.66 acre site is located within the Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 96 lots would result in a density no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10 -feet in width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees (188 trees with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, Habitat Data Report, and Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and Q. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PROJECT LOCATION: SE 18" St and 124" St LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: September 26, 2014 SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 of SIGNATURES: (4 zh 2 Gregg Zimm jn, mini rator Mark Peterson, Administrator Public Works Dartment Date Fire & Emergency Services Da e `."� i._____ �•._.�...._..�--•.----•--- `ILS' j��-�,,� ...�,•t,;� `�;�- � �;��ii,�:ti•t,� `, • _r�� . s jc:� 1 Terry Higashiyama, Administratorf;�C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ityof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D QO� •a DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSM) . MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR APPLICANT: Henley USA LLC PROJECT NAME: The Reserve at Tiffany Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The, applicant has submitted a proposal requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 97 -lot subdivision (96 lots with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The 21.66 acre site is located within the Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning classification. A small portion of the site located within the R-4 zoning classification. All proposed lots would be located within the R-8 zoning classification. The subject property is located at the dead end of SE 18th St bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property line and Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property line. The 96 lots would result in a density no more than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. In addition to the 97 (96) lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an (existing) vegetated buffer along the northern boundary 10 -feet in width. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th St with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees and the applicant has proposed to retain 147 trees (188 trees. with a 30% tree retention alternative plan). The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, Habitat Data Report, and Independent Secondary Studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetland B and Q. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th St through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PROJECT LOCATION: SE 18th St and 124th Place LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012. 2. The final drainage report shall include a more detailed downstream analysis. Pursuant to KCSWDM 1.2.2.1, a Level 2 downstream analysis for % mile from the project site is required. The applicant should note that Level 3 flow control could be required as part of the Level 2 downstream analysis. A revised final drainage report and associated plans, based on the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton, is required to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised Drainage Report. 3. The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the inspection reports. 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, which will address vermin abatement during project grading and site improvements. The vermin abatement mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The applicant shall also be required to comply and implement any recommended mitigation according to an approved plan. 6. A minimum 15 -foot wide partially sight obscuring landscape buffer along the perimeter of the site shall be provided. The 15 -feet would allow for the offset of tree planting, as opposed to a linear tree line, which would create a more natural buffer in keeping with the existing character of the site. Such landscaping or landscape plus fencing shall be, at minimum, 6 -feet high at maturity and at least 50% sight -obscuring. Existing mature trees are located within this 15 foot buffer should be maintain and protected during construction unless determined by an Arborist that such tree is dead, diseased, or dangerous. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 5 7. The applicant shall install a STOP sign with a stopline in thermoplastic on the southbound approach of Monroe Ave SE to SE 18th St in order to address the sight distance concerns at this intersection prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE 158th St intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction permits. The applicant shall also be required to comply with, and implement, any recommended mitigation measures included in the revised TIA. 9. The applicant shall install directional information signage (white letters on green background) at S Puget Drive and 116th Ave SE facing west prior to Final Plat approval. The signs shall read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. 10. An additional CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) warning sign with a 15MPH advisory speed shall be installed by the applicant on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th St (east of Beacon Way SE). The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. 11. The applicant shall provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18th St and Lake Youngs Way SE prior to Final Plat approval. The final design is subject to final construction permit review prior to construction permit issuance. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES: Plannin„t 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Water 1. There is an existing 8 -inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the 590 -water pressure zone and static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. See city water drawings W-0256, W-0508 and W-0469. Connection to the 8 -inch main in SE 19th Court will require crossing the City of Seattle pipeline. A permit from Seattle Public Utilities will be required. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for 3/ -inch or 1 -inch water meter install is $2809.00. 3. Fee for a 4 -inch meter drop in by the city is $ 400.00. Fee for a 1 -inch meter drop in by the city is $ 460.00. 4. Extension of a new 8 -inch water main and new hydrants within the plat will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. Existing hydrants counted as fire protection shall be retrofitted with storz fittings if not already in place. 6. Plat shall provide separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat.The development is subject to applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The current SDC fee for a 1" domestic water meter is $2,809.00. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. Sanitary Sewer 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in SE 18th Street. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main will be required onsite. It is shown on the plans. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a 3/ -inch water or 1 -inch meter install is $2,033.00. 3. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Surface Water 1. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. Several of the lots along the existing wetlands will discharge roof runoff into the wetland areas to maintain wetland hydrology. 2. A geotechnical report, dated September 28, 2012 was submitted by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. The field study included 12 exploration pits on the 21.6 acre site. The site is underlain at shallow depth by lodgement till sediments. For drainage purposes, this medium dense, moist, fine sand with silt is not a suitable for infiltration. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 5 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation/Street 1. Street lighting is required on public street frontages 2. All public streets and private roads must have 0.5 feet wide vertical curb. 3. Pavement thickness must follow city of Renton standards. 4. Pedestrian connectivity must be provided with no missing portions. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. Fire 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5 -inch Storz fittings. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150 -feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90 -foot diameter are required. Landscape islands are not allowed in the cul- de-sacs. General Comments 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 of 5 WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS W F C I 360/943-1723 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C FAX 3601943-4128 Olympia, WA 98501 October 7, 2014 Barbara Yarington Land Acquisition Manager Henley USA RE: Response to SEPA Determination - Henley USA Tiffany Park Project in Renton Dear Ms. Yarington: I have reviewed the SEPA determination for the project and have the following comments with respect to the tree and buffer requirements. 1. I have no comments with respect to the 30% tree retention requirements. The project plans meet the requirements, and is detailed in my Tree Protection Plan report. 2. Item 4 - the 15 ft. buffer requirement: It is my opinion, based on my experience in dealing with buffer creation in new developments, that potential tree retention in a 15 ft. buffer strip cut out of a mature forest stand, will not be significantly different than a 10 ft. buffer. It will still be scattered trees, the equivalent of 1 row deep. The number of additional save trees is unknown, but will be very small. Regarding replanting - a double row of planted trees within a 15 ft. wide strip will not appear substantially different that in a 10 ft. strip. A double staggered row of trees can still be planted in 10 ft. as well as a 15 ft. wide strip. Neither will appear natural for many years. Please give me a call if you have questions. Respectfully submitted, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Galen M. Wright, ACF, ASCA ISA Board Certified Master Arborist No. PN-0129BU Certified Forester No. 44 URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL a HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS • VEGETATION MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • CONTRACT FORESTERS Member of International Society of Arboriculture and Society of American foresters y o CITY OF RENTON G A City Clerk Division + A + 1055 South Grady Way INV Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 ❑ Cash C Check No.�' r Description: Funds Received From: ❑ Copy Fee Appeal Fee Name Address { L fCc+"1 \�t)p =t4SUi City/Zip �.✓� L Receipt Date�- ❑ Notary Service Amount City Staff Signature