HomeMy WebLinkAboutTiffany Park Mailing Denis Law City Of
Mayor Y
City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC
January 30, 2015
Wayne Potter
Novastar
1821572 nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Subject: Requests for Reconsideration & Hearing Examiner's Order
Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR
Dear Mr. Potter:
I have attached two Requests for Reconsideration filed by Cairncross & Hempelmann
representing Henley USA, LLC. dated January 22, 2015, and by Tiffany Park Woods
Advocacy Group dated January 28, 2015.
Also, the City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued an Order on Request for
Reconsideration II dated January 29, 2015.
APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing
Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires
appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days
from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing
together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510.
RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be
filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-
100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding
the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City
Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence
upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision.
1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or iseth@rentonwia.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
PJasYoC,A.0rk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
Steve Lee,Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell,Building Official
Sabrina Mirante,Secretary, Planning Division
Ed Prince,City Councilmember
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Henley USA, LLC,Applicant
Parties of Record(111)
' CITY OF RENTON S
JAN 2 9 2015
RECEIVED
1 CITY CLERICS OFFICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10 )
11 )
RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park )
12 Preliminary Plat )
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
13 ) RECONSIDERATION II
14 )
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals )
15 )
16 LUA13-001572, ECF,PP, CAE )
17
The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-
18 captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was
issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA
19 Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the
20 Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for
reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22, 2015 Order.
21 Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a
timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both
22 the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding
23 for response and reply.
24 It is recognized that once again the SEPA appellants are attempting to introduce new evidence in the
record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances.
25 This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence
26 while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
C
I applicant is given the opportunity to limit its response to evidence in the record and reserve the right
to respond to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the applicant chooses this
2 course of action, the examiner will rule on the admissibility of evidence after the submission
3 deadlines outlined below and then provide an additional opportunity for response to new evidence by
the applicant and final reply by the SEPA appellants before ruling on the reconsideration requests. In
4 the alternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the admission of new evidence
while also presenting new evidence to the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the
5 SEPA appellants that is admitted into the record.
6
7 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
8
9 1. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until
5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for
10 Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on January 28, 2015 and the Request for
Reconsideration submitted by the applicant on January 22 2015. Only persons who participated
11 in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the
12 issues raised in the requests for reconsideration.
13 2. The SEPA Appellants and the applicant shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a
written reply to the responses to their own reconsideration requests.
14
15 3. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner
16 at olbrechtstLiwCagmail.conl; Rocale Timmons at RTiminonsC'Rentonwa.gm-; Renate Beedon at
renton-opposites@comcast.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRogersCCairncross.com and Cynthia Moya
17 at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to
Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
18 Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this
19 Order.
20
DATED this 29th day of January, 2015.
21
22 PhYA.Olhvdts
23
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
CITY OF RENTON
JAN 2 2 2015
RECEIVED
CITY CLE 'S OFFICE
324 2nd SPL) o��r��:C2 206�E'07,"C,
Seattle'' ' 93104 rax 206 337 2C8
www_ta,,ncfcss.:cm -
January 22, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat
City File No. LUA13-001572—Request for Reconsideration
Dear Examiner Olbrechts:
This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and
applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to
RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a Hearing
Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on"an erroneous procedure,
errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be
reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for
review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-100(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to
ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request;
however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for
clarification and correction of technical errors.
1. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error
referencing a"15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a
"10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement."
2. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7— 10. Here, the first portion of
Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its
landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this
Condition also goes on to address the 10 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls
facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. The linkage of those two
issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise
clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and
the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal.
nro3zers@cairncross.com
direct:(206)254-4417
102743372.DOCX;2}
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts
January 22, 2015
Page 2
The record reflects that these are two separate issues. Specifically, the City Staff Report to the
Examiner(Exhibit K.La), at p. 13, described how 10-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by
RMC 4-4-070(F)(1), which provides: "Ten feet(10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public
street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with
building setbacks less than ten feet(10'). In those cases,ten feet(10') of landscaping shall be required
where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot
front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then
described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff
was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two
things: (1) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and (2) a"15-foot wide vegetated buffer
surround the subject site..."
We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions.
3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4—5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line
11, which text lists Lots 40, 41,46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text,
and Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of
perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface,
so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in
the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated.
As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a"cut"
wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat, meaning there can be no
visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is
already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised,the list
of lots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94, the
revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in
Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4
feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the
buffering requirement.
Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design
continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the
perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that
an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list of lots entirely and
instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas
where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the
wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring
property owners."
{02743372.DOCX;2}
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts
January 22, 2015
Page 3
4. There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 - 29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height.
The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA
Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the
Examiner's Decision.
5. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should
be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4.
Thank you for your time and attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
Nancy Bainbridge Rogers
NBR/kgb
cc: Rocale Timmons
{02743372.DOCX;2}
Date: Wed,Jan 28, 2015
To: City of Renton
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com CITY OFRENTON
City of Renton
JAN 2 $ 2015
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net
1725 Pierce Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for
Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of
a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure,
errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior
hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates
Renate Beedon as the designated representative.
References
• Letter entitled, "RE:The Reserve at Tiffany Park - Preliminary Plat- Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals -
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE - Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts - City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated
Jan 8, 2015.
Scope
• The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and
on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination
under SEPA.
• The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via
the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter.
• An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse
impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental
statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require
an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous.
• The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the
prior hearing.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8
Wetland Determination, Measuring and Staking
Newly Discovered Evidence
Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015
TPWAG removed all photographs of the wetlands taken on January 16, 2015. These photographs were
simply provided to show that the wetland boundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing
in bodies of water. Photographs of this condition were not readily available at the time of the hearings
because the wetland studies were performed after a 3 month draught (2013) or after unusual we
seasons (2014) of the year. The photographs that have been removed show typical conditions in
January and bring into question the delineation of the limits of the wetlands and suggests the
boundary of Wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated.
RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) provides that "any interested person feeling that the decision of the Hearing
Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery
of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for
Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited
discovery of new evidence.
TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for
Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner.
TPWAG requests that they be allowed to resubmit these photographs as newly discovered evidence.
Problems
• One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked.
As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been
done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have
been conducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with information that
is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment.
The original study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz.
The OTAK study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than described in the original study
submitted by Schulz.
After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz
and OTAK. At that on-site meeting the Applicant apparently convinced the OTAK consultants that the
original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both
reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of OTAK studies. TPWAG
requested minutes for this meeting from the City of Renton and was told that there were no minutes
because this was a "field trip" and that the two revised wetland reports from Schulz and OTAK were
record enough. Apparently, there is no written record of what was said and decided by whom during
this off-site meeting in the woods.
One thing the participants of the "field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 8
OTAK Secondary
Review Memo-4-3-1'
• We are providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots (in
particular lots 70, 79 and 80) appear to encroach onto the wetlands B and C.
• Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it
looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland.
aran
'r't PJCMVS AT TIFFANY PARK
tits }A aix < y , .`t :,� -'"���_ t-_•---+— �"
wasn 11
• These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (Date is too small
to read).
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 8
• The maps provided by the Applicant show that plats and streets already encroach onto wetland
boundaries acknowledged by the Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are correct in our assumption that the
wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the
Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the
wetland code/regulations, etc.
• We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or
oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development.
• We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again
• (A visit to the City of Renton Clerk's office on Monday,January 26, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that
several sets of original drawings were incomplete, thus we were unable to study these drawings in
conjunction with our request for reconsideration. The city planner, Ms. Timmons,told TPWAG that
the drawing dated August 2014, is "old". This "old" drawing showed the presence of a storm water
retention pond rather than a vault as presented during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014.
After Ms. Timmons left, we looked for newer drawings but could not find any. The City Clerk staff told
us that they were not in possession of newer drawings.)
Relief Requested
• Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses
to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property)
• Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time
to find an expert who is willing to work with private citizens, allow adequate time for the expert to
prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. TPWAG requests that it be invited
should such a meeting take place.
• Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by
the public as soon as possible to support this process.
• Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by
Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter.
Trees
Problems
• A 10 foot buffer around the property is inadequate, not only because of esthetic value but also
because it does not provide sufficient protection from the high winds that occur regularly in our area.
• During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public
testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed
all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees.
Relief Requested
• Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property
• Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or
carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use
that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees.
• Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code
compliance.
• Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 8
• If trees are damaged and must be removed, require Applicant to replace the damaged trees with
equivalent *mature* trees, and prohibit them from using any of the original canopy from the
removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow.
Storm Water
Problems
• Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process
storm water.
• 24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant) is barely good enough for a 10-year storm. 100-year storms are
common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the
neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development.
Relief Requested
• Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street.
• Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water to pass through it) on all streets,
sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site.
• Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns)to minimize
the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site.
• TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance
with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted
King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled:
Core Requirements#2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements#4 Conveyance Systems. The City of
Renton has some added amendments for special community situations.
Roof Runoff
Problems
• Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides
used in the yard it becomes a pollutant.
• Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to
flow control per Core Requirement #3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments
per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5.
• KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be
structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands.
(We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.)
Applicable Laws
The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that "applicable laws are not
considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface
Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core
Requirement#3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland
hydrology, "DDES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 5 of 8
Reference Section 5. Therefore this section is merely summarizing applicable law and should be considered by
the hearing examiner.
Relief Requested
Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines
Traffic
Problems
• Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed
development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However,that analysis did not
address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet cul-de-sacs into arterials
for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day- mostly on SE 18th Street - by
Applicant's own estimates).
• Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de-
sac is significant.
• We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings
showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property
value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forward. The city has
noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the
development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.)
• Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but
two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)!
• We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect the applicant to respect the
property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by
unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners.
Relief Requested
• We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law.
• Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development.
• Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has
to buy existing houses to create such access).
• Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th
Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the
proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from
Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street.
• Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street.
Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good
sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than
is SE 16th Street.
1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE.
2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the
newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial
traffic on SE 16th Street to leave their neighborhood.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8
Environmental Impact Statement
Problems
• An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse
impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental
statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not
require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous.
• The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal
hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions
at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in
which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention
vault, drainage and retaining walls, weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental
impact statement.
Relief Requested
• The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project.
Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our
issues.
Thank you.
RENATE BEEDON
President
cc:
Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmonsCcDRentonwa.Qov
Nancy Rogers mailto:NRoaers("@Cairncross.com
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 8
AOYWN&D,Se
Cedar
SE RIYCr,
Severeek
SE•IWhStimpact SSE
e
Chddmp of
Q.lQ °hkka-
-'7%h St
a y�
% Severe �y
impact
� ; � ?rcpos�d coetL.byw4na
4
SEi57ehst ii`! TM4wyrarkl` � '� a velop,�,Cot Ti
C7 tA
tA
W SF Cr
SE it
fi yr rrceimuc �. Severe
w impact
SE 21st St
tirade Nw Sf
t:.atrr SE 160th StSpee_d..-.-
_ '� SE 160th k r-
a ;3::�p
5E 1ti0th k W�y
Schad � � �• � Ca1[ede tiltf "....
SE 162nd k 1Q { SE 162nd st
SE 162nd St SE 163rd St
tv
SE 163rd St t V yf "_`� s
SE164thSt I I b,amp< sE St SE
SE 1Wth k SE 164th St
Figure 1 -Area Map
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 8 of 8
Technical Memorandum
To: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
City of Renton- Current Planning
10230 NE Points Drive From: Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist
Suite 400 (425) 739-7977
Kirkland, WA 98033
Phone(425)8224446 Copies:
Fax(425)827-9577
Date: April 3, 2014
Subject:
Reserve at Tiffany Park
Wetland Delineation Review
Project No.: 32385.A
This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City- of
Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant,Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of
Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park,
to the north of SE 158`h Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by
the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide
comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3-
050, Critical Areas Regulations.
The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of
the City code:
• Wletland Determination:Reserve at Tiany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28,
2014;
• Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat,prepared by Barghausen Consulting
Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014.
• Technical Information Report,prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated
November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014.
The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the
site,which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that
wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the
requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC.
K:\project\32300\32385A\Reports\Critical Areas Review Nlemo_2014_0403.doe
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Page 2
Reserve at Tiffany Park Vetland Review April 3,2014
Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17,2014, to confirm whether the wetland
delineation was consistent with the l lashington State Vetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
(Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March
31, 2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013,whereas the rainfall
amount as of March 17,2014,was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March
(National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March.
Comment 1 — Delineation Method
The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation
manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Vashington State
Vetlands Identification and Delineation Manual(Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.M.4.a.
Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the
methodology required by the RAIC.
Comment 2—Survey Map
We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags,which is necessary for confirming
the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field;
however,if we have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not
need to be replaced.
Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags
(from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced
as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges.
Comment 3—Wetland A
We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However,we could not find some of the
flags (including Wetland A-1) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas
extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1,A-3,A-5, and A-6. In these
areas,we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all),hydric soils, and wetland hydrology
(mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014,in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated
(flagged) wetland,inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We
agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland,which is
required to have a 50-foot buffer.
Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the
early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the
revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans.
K:Aproject\32300\323R5A\Reports\Critical_Areas Review Nlemo_2014_0403.doc
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Page 3
Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review April 3, 2014
Comment 4—Wetlands B and C
During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated
edges of Wetlands B and C. In addition,Wetlands B and C are not separated by upland area;they
appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014,inundation ranged from several inches
to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation
(mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these
areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland,
which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands B and C are connected (one
wedand), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2.
Recommendation: Wetlands B and C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged
during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wedand
B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wedand Determination Report
and project plans.
Comment 5—Wetland D
We agree with the majority of the wedand flag locations on Wedand D, although the wedand
appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wedand
D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland.
Recommendation: The wedand should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the
early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the
revised Wedand Determination Report and project plans.
Comment 6—Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW)
An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side
of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wedand is
southwest of(in line with) 18`h Court SE. This linear wedand is approximately 150 to 200 feet long
and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and
hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface
to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a
Category 3 wedand,which is required to have a 25-foot buffer.
Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wedand should be
delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wedand Determination Report and plans. If
permission for delineation is not received, the wedand location should be estimated and shown on
the plans, along with the buffer.
K:\project\32300\32385A\Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Page 4
Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review April3,2014
Comment 7—Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW)
Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-
way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands;if so,
they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site.
Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not
extend onto the property.
Comment 8—Wetland in Southwest Corner of Site
A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site, to the north of SE 18'h Street and
southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan
blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation
were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of
SE 18`" Street.
Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and
added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans.
Comment 9—Flowpath from Wetland B
During our March 17, 2014 site visit,water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to
the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar
River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on Nfarch 17`"was
approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the
stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed
and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the
flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow
strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed
along the flowpath that had been observed on Nlarch 17`". Standing water was present at Wetland B
(beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland.
No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek,
approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per
RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes).
Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/after
high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream.
Recommendation: No action is necessary.
K:Aproject\32300\32385A\Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doe
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Page 5
Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Revieav April 3,2014
Comment 10 —Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW)
The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest
of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as
FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils;therefore, the area appears to be a wetland
(see Photograph 6).
Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and
added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans.
Comment 11—Buffer Averaging
The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets
all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050.NI.6.£ However, revisions to wetland edges will likely
change this proposal.
Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with
the any necessary revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite.
Comment 12—Temporary Buffer Impacts
Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (Preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers
that-,vill result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed
in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report.
Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary
impacts to wetland buffers,including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace
those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of
60% design.
Encl. Photographs
KAproject\32300\32385_ \Reports\Critical Areas Review blemo_2014_0403.doc
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Page 6
Rex erve at Tiffany Park Fetland . 2014
PHOTOGRAPHS o
1.
Photograph 1:
i
is
•r � �.�t r
• A, near southerndelineated edge
rrn f n i ��,i 4 �• • •i ,�wir 1.
Photograph 2. Offsite wedand on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17/14)
K:\project\32300\32385A\Reports\C66caI Areas Review Nkmo-2014-0401doc
.t
.r.
p; ♦ as .��r �`�n i,. r! x"� �'�i" $f��Y ; •� � '#}�
177,
\� v4.°' ", ♦
� � ".ra Are 1 .Q\•� ^:".\y.9 _- , ��•Ar
�' A e
fi,t
ja tll �
! 4.A
h
T �• � y p r wif�i�`,..fib` } ` � » x, �"�T�ll :moi
ap
• '""l� ifs s�. �` �' ,r �
3' `few
.. ° Irr
IP