HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2021 - Cedar River Apartment - Final Decision LUA-19-0001611
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Cedar River Apartments
Master Plan, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and
Substantial Development Permit
LUA19-000161, SSDP, SA-M, SA-H
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL
DECISION
Summary
SRM Development, LLC, has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Hearing Examiner Site
Plan Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a proposed phased mixed -use
development located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway that includes 481 attached dwelling units,
4,842 square feet of ground floor retail and a 25,000 square foot office building. The applications
are approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-55 identified at page 2 of the August 10, 2021 Staff Report were entered during the August
10, 2021 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the August 10,
2021 public hearing as well:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
Exhibit 56 Staff power point
Exhibit 57 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
Exhibit 58 Google Maps
Emails from Clark Close and Ray Liaw dated August 12, 2021 are admitted as Exhibits 59 and
60 respectively.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. James D. Rivard, SRM Development, LLC, 720 6th St S, Ste 200, Kirkland, WA
98033.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11 am on August 10, 2021,
Zoom Meeting ID No. 854 7111 4126. The hearing was left open through August 12, 2021 for the
parties to resolve some issues pertaining to staff recommended Condition No. 1(d).
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The Applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a proposed
phased mixed-use development located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway that includes 481 attached
dwelling units, 4,842 square feet of ground floor retail and a 25,000 square foot office building. The
completed project would provide approximately 761 vehicle parking spaces with 56 of those spaces
within a surface parking area and the remainder provided as structured parking within the residential
and office buildings. The Applicant proposes shoreline restoration that includes the retention of
approximately 34 trees and construction of pedestrian trails near the Cedar River within the
boundaries of the subject property. The Applicant has requested fill activities in the 100-year flood
plain along the Cedar River that would be mitigated via onsite compensatory flood storage. The
project site is 12.5 acres in size.
The Applicant is proposing to develop the site in three (3) phases. The proposal would include a two-
phased five story building. A third phase would include a 25,000 square foot office building. There
would be a total of three stand-alone buildings: residential (Building A), mixed-use residential with
commercial retail space (Building B), and medical office (Building C). As shown on the proposed
phasing plan, the Applicant proposes a sequence to construct each building (Exhibit 5). The first two
(2) phases would include 481 multifamily dwelling units and 4,852 square feet of commercial retail
space in Buildings A and B. Phase 1 would develop approximately seventy percent (70%) percent of
the site and Phase 2 would include development of twenty one percent (21%) of the site. Phase 3
would develop the remaining nine percent (9%) of the project and it would include a 25,000 square
feet of medical office building located north of Phases 1 and 2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
4. Surrounding Uses. The project site is surrounded by public and commercial use. The Renton
Community Center, Henry Moses Aquatic Center, Cedar River Park and the Renton Community Center
are some of the public uses within the vicinity. Residential use is located across adjoining Maple
Highway to the east.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Adequate
infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. A State Environmental Policy Act
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued for the project on June 17, 2021 with eight
mitigation measures designed to eliminate significant adverse impacts. See Ex. 50. Impacts are more
specifically addressed as follows:
A. Structure Placement and Scale. As conditioned, the structure placement and scale are not
expected to create undue adverse impact on the adjacent uses and is designed to protect privacy
and reduce noise for on- and off-site occupants and to maintain compatibility with existing
development and surrounding uses. The site layout arranges the buildings with larger densities
and scale near the southern portion of the lot, along the waterfront, and transitions to a smaller
scale and lower building heights closer to the public right-of-way. Setbacks along the east and
west ends of Buildings A and B provide for privacy and noise reduction. Once completed, the
mixed-use buildings would provide privacy and noise reductions for outdoor use along the
waterfront.
B. Views. No obstruction of existing views of natural features are anticipated, including view
corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
The proposed apartment building design includes a five-story building approximately 67 feet
above the finished elevation of the building. The apartment buildings would be some of the
tallest structures in the area and they are located adjacent to the Cedar River. However, the
proposal includes shoreline access and view corridors that mitigate against this view impact.
The Applicant provided a view corridor study (Exhibit 54) with the master site plan application.
According to the study, there are no trails on or near the subject property and no views to the
Cedar River shoreline from the project frontages along the public rights-of-way. The site is
mostly bordered with landscape screening prohibiting views. As part of Phases 1 and 2, the
Applicant is proposing two (2) full view corridors from the right-of-way on either side of the
project. There is an additional view corridor in the middle of the project through its glass wall
entry and leasing office. These view corridors are anticipated to provide views of the adjacent
treed hillside on the south side of the river. In addition, the proposal would include access to the
100-foot buffer located along the approximately 1,400 feet south frontage along the Cedar River.
This shoreline buffer would be revegetated to a more natural state to improve the overall natural
habitat of the site. In addition, the shoreline restoration plans include a new meandering public
trail along the river providing continuous views of the river and shoreline with access from
Maple Valley Highway and Cedar River Park Dr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. Territorial
views may be available from upper floors of the apartment buildings.
C. Noise, light and glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or glare impacts.
The conditions of approval require the submission of a lighting plan. Implementation of the plan
will ensure compliance with the City’s light and glare standards and are construed as adequately
mitigating against light and glare impacts.
The proposal is not anticipated to generate any significant noise impacts since the proposed use
is residential and office. Setbacks along the east and west ends of Buildings A and B provide
for privacy and noise reduction. Once completed, the mixed-use buildings would provide
privacy and noise reduction for outdoor use along the waterfront.
D. Screening. As conditioned, unattractive site features will be adequately screened from view.
The Applicant did not provide sufficient details of roof or surface mounted equipment and/or
screening identified for such equipment with the land use application. Therefore, a condition of
approval requires the Applicant to submit a special utility and landscape plan set that includes
cross-section details identifying how all surface and roof top utility/mechanical equipment
would be screened from public view. The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure,
as practical, utility boxes are located out of public right-of-way view, active common open
spaces, and they shall not displace required landscaping areas.
E. Fencing and Retaining Walls. Proposed fencing will not create any significant impacts. As
conditioned, all proposed fencing is lower than eight feet and does not block landscaping or
serve as a traffic hazard.
The project site includes existing shoreline armoring along the subject property consisting of an
approximately 15-foot to 20-foot (15’-20’) tall concrete bulkhead extending east from the
settling pond. The toe of the bulkhead wall consists of mass concrete along the base with
concrete blocks stacked vertically and embedded into the mass. To the west of the settling pond
the shoreline bank slopes gradually to where a retaining wall is located. An old chain link fence
(appears to be four feet (4’) in height) is located on top of the concrete wall and retaining wall
along the length of the shoreline. The parcel contains inconsistent perimeter chain link fencing
with heights ranging from approximately four- to eight-foot (4’-8’) with barbwire placed on top
of some of fencing. The location of the exiting chain link fencing would stand in or in front of
the required landscaping and therefore the eight feet (8’) tall fencing would exceed the height
limitations. Furthermore, the chain link fencing is not a quality material commensurate with the
rest of the development. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a
detail fencing plan with the civil construction permit application that provides material details,
height, and location of fencing on the master site plan. The fencing shall be consistent, high-
quality, and commensurate to the materials that are used throughout the development. The
fencing material shall be wood, ornamental, or comparable material as approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager. Chain link fencing shall not be accepted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
F. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features. The only natural
feature of the project site is the Cedar River shoreline and that area is adequately protected by
the City’s shoreline regulations.
The majority of the existing parcel is generally void of any meaningful vegetation with the
exception of areas along the shoreline. The proposed project improvements would occur within
impervious areas formerly used as a concrete facility. The total impervious surface of the area
will actually be decreased as a result of the proposal. The shoreline area will largely remain in
its native state as it will be within the shoreline buffer. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to
protect the natural landscape by retaining 34 trees along the shoreline.
The geotechnical report for the project, Ex. 19, identified slope areas along the Cedar River that
are generally present due to natural stream processes as the river has eroded and steepened the
upland soils. Isolated sensitive slopes upland of the river would be leveled during site grading
to support the proposed development. A protected slope along the southeastern portion of the
property would not be impacted as most of the area is within the 100-foot OHWM buffer area.
No proposed structure encroachments are proposed within the protected slope or its 15-foot
setback.
G. Landscaping. Aesthetic, noise, light and privacy impacts will be minimized by existing and
proposed landscaping.
As shown on the conceptual landscaping plan (Exhibit 4), street frontage landscaping is provided
along the site’s perimeter with the exception of pedestrian areas. Overall, staff have concluded
that the proposed preliminary landscape plan provides adequate transitions between
development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and would
generally enhance the appearance of the project.
H. Critical Areas. The proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The
critical areas identified at the project site are each assessed individually below. All impacts to
the critical areas are found to be adequately mitigated as the Applicant has demonstrated to the
satisfaction of staff that with staff recommended conditions (all adopted by this Decision), the
critical areas are mitigated to the extent required by the City’s critical area regulations.
1. Steep Slopes. As previously identified in Finding of Fact No. 5F, there is a protected
slope along the southeastern portion of the property. The slope is adequately protected as
most of the slope is within the 100-foot OHWM buffer area and no proposed structure
encroachments are proposed within the protected slope or its 15-foot setback.
2. Flood Hazard. The site is mapped with Special Flood Hazard Area (FEMA Zone – AE)
and Severe Channel Migration Zone. The proposal adequately mitigates the flood hazard
area by increasing flood storage capacity as outlined below. The Applicant has also
demonstrated that it is not actually within a channel migration zone. The project area also
encroaches into a floodway, but no fill would occur within the floodway.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
An existing bulkhead is located along the southern boundary except for the far western
portion of the property. As shown on the Flood Boundary Map and Compensatory Storage
Plan (Exhibits 12 and 13), the Applicant proposes to fill portions of the subject property’s
floodplain to accommodate the location of the proposed building and infrastructure. The
Applicant has also submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
(CLOMR-F) form (Exhibit 26) that, if approved by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, would result in the building’s exclusion from the flood hazard area as indicated
on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map. The Compensatory Storage Plan (Exhibit
13) proposes approximately 883 cubic yards of fill to be placed within the existing
floodplain. To compensate for the loss of existing flood storage, the Applicant proposes
to excavate approximately 1,374 cubic yards and to grade additional areas southwest of
the building to provide additional compensatory flood storage. Additionally, the river side
wall of the settling pond is proposed to be reduced thereby providing approximately 2,126
cubic yards of flood storage. The net increase in flood storage with the floodplain
excavation and settling pond storage results in 2,616 cubic yards. The Applicant’s
proposal would maintain a minimum 100-foot setback for Buildings A and B from the
OHWM. Within the setback area, the Applicant has proposed shoreline habitat restoration
and pedestrian access amenities (Exhibits 14-18) to mitigate impacts to the Cedar River
floodplain.
The Applicant submitted a Channel Migration Risk Assessment, provided by The
Watershed Company (dated April 8, 2020; Exhibit 25). The analysis found that no
geomorphic or photogrammatic indicators of a historical migration area since the
construction of the Seattle City Light Masonry Dam and that based on the analysis there
is no evidence to support a channel migration hazard on the subject property. The memo
concludes that the channel migration zone mapped by King County is based on unarmored
areas of the Cedar River and thereby would not apply to the subject property.
3. Shoreline. The project site is located along the shore of the Cedar River. The proposal
adequately protects against any impacts to the Cedar River as project impacts will result
in no net loss of ecological function.
Overall, shoreline impacts are anticipated to be minimal because the proposal will be built
in an already developed area away from the shoreline. The proposed project would be
confined to the former Stoneway Sand and Gravel Company property and only a lim ited
number of trees would be removed. The Applicant’s proposal would maintain a minimum
100-foot setback for Buildings A and B from the OHWM. Within the setback area, the
Applicant has proposed shoreline habitat restoration and pedestrian access amenities
within the Cedar River buffer which is currently significantly degraded (Exhibits 14-18).
The Applicant’s Critical Areas Report, prepared by The Watershed Company dated
October 2018 (Exhibit 27), states vegetation is limited to few areas with much of the
property consisting of compacted gravel. As a component of Phase 1 of the Master Plan
(Exhibit 5), the Applicant proposes restoration of the riparian buffer as identified in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
Shoreline Landscaping Plan (Exhibit 15). Proposed vegetation would include native
species suitable for high visibility, view preservation, and forested conditions. Bioswale
and meadow planting would be located in stormwater areas in and around the settling
ponds, respectively. The Applicant would also regrade the riparian area and construct
passive trails and as shown on the Shoreline Grading and Trail Plan (Exhibit 16).
All development is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and Cedar River habitat
conservation area, with the exception of a public access trail and associated public access
areas along the shoreline, and the shoreline buffer would be restored with native plantings
to provide a net improvement over the existing condition and provide screening between
the upland development and the river. In addition, the floodplain area would be graded to
result in a net increase in floodplain storage capacity and no fill would occur within the
floodway. As a result, no adverse effects on floodplain habitat function or the species they
support are expected to occur. According to the report, the proposal seeks to avoid and
minimize adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. The
project proposes revegetation of the buffer, has been designed to meet code requirements
and would protect or enhance fish and wildlife habitat and other shoreline functions.
Shoreline processes would be maintained or improved though the addition of native
vegetation in the riparian area. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no net loss
of ecological functions and has values consistent with the City of Renton’s Shoreline
Master Program.
4. Aquifer Recharge Area. The site is located in Wellhead Protection Zone 1. The aquifer
is adequately protected as the proposal complies with the City’s Zone 1 regulations.
Areas within the Zone 1 designation are lands situated between a well or wellfield owned
by the City and the 365-day groundwater travel time contour. Infiltration devices are not
allowed in Zone 1. No infiltration is proposed and the proposal does not include any other
prohibited activities identified in the City’s Zone 1 regulations.
I. Compatibility/Overconcentration. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and
does not represent an overconcentration of use.
The proposed project would be constructed over three (3) phases. The site plan includes
higher intensity uses (medical office and commercial retail) along or closer to the public
streets and the less intensive uses (multi-family) along the back or rear portions of the lot.
The project transitions in height between phases with generally lower building heights closer
to the public streets. The transition in scale across the development provides a development
pattern that avoids over scaling and overconcentration of the development in any particular
portion of the site. The apartment buildings would be constructed during phases 1 and 2 and
the future medical office building would be constructed during phase 3. Most of the site would
be fully developed after the first two initial phases (approximately 92% of the site).
The proposal also doesn’t represent an overconcentration of multifamily housing at its
proposed location because there are no similar multifamily developments within proximity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
of the site. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the majority of surrounding uses are public
with some residential use located across the adjoining Maple Valley Highway.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The proposal will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water
and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.
B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and
Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the
proposed development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
C. Drainage. Adequate drainage facilities are proposed. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary
Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 29), which proposes a drainage system that
staff has found as conditioned to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design
Manual (RSWDM) and other City stormwater standards. Conformance to the RSWDM and
associated standards establishes adequate provision for drainage.
The TIR proposes that targeted pollution generating impervious surfaces would be treated
via three (3) Filterra system units. Flows from the water quality units and non-pollution
generating surfaces are proposed to be piped with two (2) outfalls on the Cedar River, one
(1) outfall located in the former location of the washout basin and one (1) outfall
approximately 385-feet to the west. On June 17, 2021, the Environmental Review
Committee issued mitigation measure for the Applicant to submit a Final Technical
Information Report (TIR) with the civil construction permit application that includes
qualitative and quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance with the Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The analysis must provide
justification for the currently proposed stormwater improvements, or if needed, an amended
proposal to comply with the conservation plan as it relates to salmon health, habitat, and
effects from the project’s stormwater discharge into the Cedar River. The analysis and any
amendments to the proposed stormwater improvements would be required to comply with
the conservation plan. Review and approval of the Final Technical Information Report
(TIR) would be completed by the Development Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to permit
issuance.
During site construction, the Applicant would be required to implement temporary erosion
and sediment control measures. Such measures would include but ar e not limited to silt
fences, conveyance swales, check dams, a sediment pond with a liner, catch basin inserts,
mulching of exposed areas, and dust control.
D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
parks and open space.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
Under City regulations, the 481 dwelling units located within Buildings A and B would result
in a combined minimum common open/recreation space area of 24,050 square feet. As
shown on the landscaping plan (Exhibit 4), the Applicant is proposing approximately 42,000
square feet of exterior open space in the form of courtyards and approximately 6,000 square
feet of outdoor recreation space for basketball and tennis. Floor plans for Buildings A and B
(Exhibits 6 and 7) provide approximately 12,400 square feet of combined interior recreation
facilities in the form of gyms and lounges.
Passive and active recreation is provided on courtyards, shoreline trails, and multi -purpose
sports courts throughout the development. These open space areas serve as multiple focal
points for the proposed large-scale development.
E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities.
The proposed vehicular access points would be limited to a single street connection to Cedar
River Dr and one (1) driveway connection to Maple Valley Highway.
The proposal provides a safe and efficient circulation pattern for both vehicles and
pedestrians within the site. Internal pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk network
are proposed in order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and
to abutting sites. The project’s internal public street alignment, located between the medical
office building and the apartment buildings, allows for safe transitions and linkages between
uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Pedestrian walkways, internal to the
development, would link guests to the public sidewalk system. Further, a condition of
approval requires that the surface material for all pedestrian walking surfaces be either
concrete, unit pavers, or similar material.
The proposal adequately accommodates loading and delivery areas and appropriately hides
them from view. A separate access to the loading and unloading areas, screen by landscaping
from the public street, would be provided for each multi-family building. The loading area
for each building is sufficient in size and location to support the proposed multi-family
buildings. The site plan provides for a minimum of forty-five feet (45') of clear maneuvering
area from the internal street and parking lot in front of each door.
Congestion and other transportation impacts were assessed in the Applicant’s traffic study,
Ex. 31. The traffic study was subject to peer review. Key findings from the traffic analysis
indicate all six (6) study intersections would operate a LOS D or better during AM and PM
peak hours with the exception of Bronson Way N/Houser Way N which would operate a
LOS F (with and without the project). In addition, the N 3rd St/Sunset Blvd N intersection
would drop from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of the project related traffic in the peak
hour. As a result of the anticipated LOS changes, the peer review analysis recommended
mitigation focused on improving performance and reliability of the signal system at the
Cedar River Park Dr/Maple Valley Highway intersection and along the Maple Valley
Highway corridor in the immediate vicinity of the site utilizing an Adaptive Traffic Control
System (ATCS). The adaptive system known as Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
(SCOOT) would mitigate the project’s impact to vehicle queuing, intersection operations,
and vehicle hours of delay along Maple Valley Highway. Furthermore, the peer review also
recommended traffic calming measures within the Cedar River Park parking lot to
discourage project related traffic from utilizing the Cedar River Park parking lot to bypass
congestion around the I-405 interchange. The peer review recommendations were adopted
into the SEPA MDNS mitigation measures.
Impacts to system wide transportation network will be mitigated via imposition of traffic
impact fees pursuant to the terms of the City’s transportation impact fee ordinance. The
proposal has also passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit
23), which is another congestion standard adopted by the City. The City’s concurrency
standard is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth
levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, and future payment of appropriate
traffic impact fees.
F. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transit and bicycle
facilities.
Transit service in the region is provide by the King County Department of Transportation
(Metro Transit). There are two routes that run along SR 169 in the vicinity of the site (Routes
907 and 143). The proposal would not alter current transit services.
Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of
required off-street parking spaces for medical office and one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space
per one attached dwelling unit. The submitted attached residential floor plans (Exhibit 8)
indicates several bicycle rooms within level 1. However, not enough detail was provided to
identify quantities or other bicycle parking standards of the code and therefore a condition
of approval requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance in its building permit plans.
G. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. The Applicant
proposes 761 parking spaces, which is consistent with the range of parking required and
allowed by applicable City parking standards.
Parking regulations require that a minimum of 1 parking space be proved per attached
dwelling unit with a maximum of 1.75 parking spaces per unit. Parking regulations for
commercial activities require a minimum and maximum of 5.0 per 1,000 square feet of net
floor area for medical offices and a required minimum and maximum of 2.5 per 1,000 square
feet of net floor area for retail sales.
The Applicant is proposing a combined total of 761 vehicle parking spaces when all phases
of the development are completed. Phases 1 and 2 (Buildings A and B) would provide 645
structured parking spaces and Phase 3 (future medical office building) would provide sixty
(60) below grade structured parking spaces. In addition to structured parking areas, an
additional fifty-six (56) surface parking spaces would be provided onsite. Together, all three
(3) uses would be required to provide a minimum of 618 parking spaces up to a maximum of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
979 parking spaces. The full buildout of 761 vehicle parking spaces would comply with the
allowed range of parking requirements.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and hearing examiner site plans as Type III applications.
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits as Type II permits. RMC 4-
8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number
procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, preliminary plat and street modification
applications are subject to Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4 -8-080(G), Type III review is
subject to hearing and final decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the
City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan/Design District Designations. The subject property is zoned and
has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The parcel
is also subject to Urban Design District C.
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval for all development in the COR
zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities.
Hearing examiner site plan review is required for any development involving over 100 attached
dwelling units in the COR zone. See RMC 4-9-200B2; D2i. Shoreline substantial development
permits are required for any nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC
4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria for master plan and site plan review are set by RMC 4-9-200(E), with the
criteria the same for both but applied at a broader conceptual level for master plan review. The criteria
for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9-190(B)(7), which requires
compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) use regulations and SMP
policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
conclusions of law.
Site Plan and Master Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
4. Since the Applicant is applying concurrently applying for both master plan and site plan review,
the more detailed application of site plan review criteria will ensure compliance with the more
general application of the criteria for master plan review. The Conclusions of Law in this decision
apply the review criteria at the site plan application level of detail and that is found to support the
overall conclusion that the proposal complies with master plan review criteria as well.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies,
especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 171 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 18 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “C” and consistent with
Design District “C” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 19 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this
recommendation are “FOF No. _____.”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation
and loading areas by FOF 6(E), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(G) and lighting by
FOF 5(C).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(A). Extensive landscaping is
required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(G) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade
and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion
quoted above.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than
directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including
the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E), access is consolidated into a single street
connection to Cedar River Dr and one driveway connection to Maple Valley Highway. The proposal
will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in
FOF No. 6(E). Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined
by a separate access point as outlined in FOF No. 6(E). The proposal will be served by adequate
transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(F).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(D).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for three view corridors to the Cedar River as well
as shoreline access to the river as determined in FOF No. 5(B).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F and 5H.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
FOF No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
13. The criterion is met. The Applicant has submitted a detailed phasing plan as summarized in
FOF No. 3.
Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted,
provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines
of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
14. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed in
Finding No. 22 of the staff report. The most important and pervasive requirement in the City’s
shoreline regulations and policies, reflecting state shoreline priorities, is that the proposal result in
no net loss of ecological function. As determined in FOF No. 5H3, the proposal meets that standard.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
Applicant’s master plan, site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications are met
by the proposal and the applications are approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination
of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated June 17, 2021.
a. The project shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report,
prepared by Terracon Consultants Inc., dated October 31, 2018 and any future
addenda.
b. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction and
building permit plans to verify compliance with the geotechnical report(s). The
geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed
the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and
specifications meet the intent of the report(s).
c. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall provide notes on the construction and
building permit plans identifying when onsite geotechnical engineer supervision of
construction events is recommended.
d. The Applicant shall submit a Final Technical Information Report (TIR) with the
civil construction permit application that includes qualitative and quantitative
analysis demonstrating compliance with the Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The analysis shall provide
justification for the currently proposed stormwater improvements, or if needed, an
amended proposal to comply with the conservation plan as it relates to salmon
health, habitat, and effects from the project’s stormwater discharge into the Cedar
River. The analysis and any amendments to the proposed stormwater improvements
needed to comply with the conservation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Development Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to permit issuance. This Condition
1(d) should be applied as outlined in the Ex. 59.
e. The Applicant shall submit an archeological survey prepared by a qualified
professional with the civil construction permit application. Consultation with
Concerned Tribes shall occur prior to survey activities. Based on the results and
recommendations of the survey, an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan and onsite
monitoring during construction activities by a professional archeologist funded by
the Applicant may be required.
f. The Applicant shall reconfigure the northbound Cedar River Park Drive to provide
dual left turn lanes with a shared right turn lane (curb lane). To support this new
channelization, the Applicant shall install signal detection, signal head
modifications, and overhead signage on the east side mast-arm at the intersection of
Cedar River Park Drive and Maple Valley Highway. The Applicant shall submit
plans to construct these off-site improvements with the civil construction permit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 17
17
application to be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and
Transportation staff prior to permit issuance.
g. The Applicant shall fully fund the installation and configuration of the Adaptive
Traffic Control System (ATCS) Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique
(SCOOT) along intersections impacted by the proposal including NE 3rd
Street/Monterey Drive NE and those identified in the Cedar River Apartments
Independent Transportation and Mitigation Analysis (Exhibit 34) prepared by
Transpo Group dated May 7, 2021. Installation, configuration, and operation of the
SCOOT system shall occur prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the first
building.
h. The Applicant shall identify and propose potential traffic calming measures to be
located within the Cedar River Park parking lot to discourag e project related cut-
through traffic. The traffic calming proposal shall be coordinated and approved by
the Community Services Department. Approved traffic calming measures shall be
installed prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan per the submittal requirements set
forth in RMC 4-8-120.D.12 that meets the applicable standards set forth in RMC 4-4-070,
Landscaping with the civil construction permit application. The Applicant shall coordinate
with the Current Planning Project Manager with selection of street tree species from the
City’s Approved Street Tree List. The detailed landscaping plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
3. The Applicant shall install ten feet (10’) of temporary on-site landscaping along the public
street frontages of the Phase 3 development site. Such landscaping shall include a mixture
of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Installation of the temporary landscaping shall be
completed as part of Phase 2 unless a construction or building permit for Phase 3 has been
applied for. A final detailed landscape plan shall be provided to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance.
4. The Applicant shall be required to provide a detailed irrigation plan with the civil
construction permit application. The detailed irrigation plan shall be provided to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit
issuance.
5. The Applicant shall submit a special utility and landscape plan set that includes cross-
section details identifying the location and screening provided for all surface and roof top
utility/mechanical equipment and identify how they would be screened from public view.
The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are
located out of public ROW view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace
required landscaping areas. The special utility and landscape plan set shall be provided to,
and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit
and/or building permit approval.
6. The Applicant shall provide a detailed refuse and recycling pick-up plan. The final detailed
plan shall also be provided to the City’s contracted refuse and recycling hauler (currently
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 18
18
Republic Services) with any correspondence to and from the hauler provided to the Current
Planning Project Manager.
7. The Applicant shall provide bicycle parking for up to 242 stalls (one of which shall be for
the commercial retail space) and indicate compliance with bicycle parking standards on the
floor plans submitted with the building permit application. Bicycle parking shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
issuance.
8. The Applicant shall submit revised building elevations and floor plans that clearly indicate
a minimum ten feet (10') setback for a fifth story above the preceding story or an equivalent
development standard that enhances the character of the building. The revised building
elevations and floor plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit issuance.
9. The Applicant shall submit a detail fencing plan with the civil construction permit
application that provides material details, height, and location of fencing on the master site
plan. The fencing shall be consistent, high-quality, and commensurate to the materials that
are used throughout the development. The fencing material shall be wood, ornamental, or
comparable material as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Chain link
fencing shall not be accepted. The revised fencing plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior permit issuance.
10. The Applicant shall submit a detailed entrance and courtyard plan that includes
specifications for pedestrian amenities that add to the pedestrian experience and the human
scale intended for the development. A revised detailed entrance and courtyard plan shall be
submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction
permit approval.
11. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations for Buildings A and B. The revised elevations
shall provide prominent entry features that distinguish the residential entrances from the
commercial entrances and are architecturally compatible. The revised building elevations
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit issuance.
12. The Applicant shall provide the paving material as scored concrete or comparable material
as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. A detailed fire lane design plan shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
13. The Applicant shall provide pedestrian sidewalks on the south and west side of Phase 3 as
part of the Phase 1 and 2. The civil plans would be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance.
14. The Applicant shall provide a raised crosswalk or a crosswalk out of different materials
from the abutting paving material within the drive aisle as approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager. A detailed crosswalk design plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 19
19
15. The Applicant shall submit detail sheets and quantities of all outdoor site furniture and
amenities, including, but not limited to, benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, pet
relief areas/disposal, and outdoor recreation equipment. The detail sheets and quantities
shall be integrated in the detailed landscape plan submitted with the civil construction permit
to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. but not limited to
benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, and outdoor recreation equipment. The detail
sheets and quantities shall be integrated in the detailed landscape plan submitted with the
civil construction permit to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager.
16. The Applicant shall submit graphic verification that weather protection is at least four and
one-half feet (4 ½’) from the building and along five percent (75%) of the commercial retail
façades facing the interior street and/or a narrative of how the proposed weather protection
meets the intent and guidelines of the Pedestrian Environment section of the Urban Design
Regulations with the building permit application. The verification and narrative shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
17. The Applicant shall provide one (1) additional color, pattern, or textural change to the
exterior façade. Revised architectural elevations and a materials board with color chips shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
18. The Applicant shall submit an overall sign design package for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the project.
19. The Applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan with the building permit application for
Building A and Building B that includes detail sheets of all light fixtures and their supports.
Fixtures and supports shall be pedestrian scaled and consistent with the design of the site
and provide adequate footcandle illumination in pedestrian areas. The detailed lighting plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
20. The surface material for all pedestrian walking surfaces shall be either concrete, unit pavers,
or similar material as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
21. The Applicant shall comply with contamination-related details associated with the project,
as identified by Department of Ecology. More specifically, three (3) onsite 48-inch diameter
dry wells be decommissioned in accordance with WAC 173-160. Any project construction
that could encounter groundwater with elevated pH levels must provide provisions beyond
standard worker safety precautions in accordance with WAC 173-340-810, Safety
Standards for Hazardous Waste, and WAC 173-340-810, Worker Safety and Health. Such
activities include removal, treatment, and disposal of any soil, settling pond sediment, or
groundwater during the proposed partial demolition of the settling basins and restoration of
the Cedar River shoreline. Compliance with Department of Ecology’s identified
contamination-related details shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 20
20
22. The Applicant shall demonstrate ADA requirements for the proposed six-foot (6’) stair and
walkway widths or apply for a shoreline variance application for the expanded width above
four feet (4”).
23. The Applicant shall complete site inspection of the public access prior to Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
24. The Applicant shall submit a draft of the public access legal instrument to be recorded that
includes language regarding maintenance responsibilities with the building permit
application. The final legal instrument shall be recorded prior to Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy of the first building.
25. The Applicant shall be required to provide a public access signage package with the civil
construction permit application. The public access signage package shall be provided to,
and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit
issuance.
Decision issued August 19, 2021.
Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s) subject
to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision
must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for
reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 1 of 18
Appendix A
August 10, 2021 Hearing Transcript
Cedar River Apartments -- LUA19-000161, ECF, SSDP, SA-M, SA-H
Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should
not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the
programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at the City’s hearing examiner
website should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Mr. Olbrechts:
... let's get started. It is August 10, 2021. I'm Mr. Olbrechts [inaudible 00:00:12] hearing examiner for the
City of Renton. Today we have a application for site plan review, hearing examiner site plan review and
shoreline substantial developmental permit for a mix used development at 1915 Maple Valley Highway.
This is file number PR19-000306. The hearing format for today will be we'll start off with a presentation
from staff. Who's doing this one today?
Clark Close:
[crosstalk 00:00:38] that'll be Clark Close today.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, great. Well, then Mr. Close will give us an overview of the project, and once he's done
we'll then move on to the applicants. They don't have to say anything if they don't want to, but they
certainly have that opportunity. Then we'll move onto public comments. Mrs. Cisneros do we have any
members of the public participating today?
Jenny Cisneros:
Not that I know of, but if they would like to they can definitely, at the time of the participation hearing.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. All right.
Jenny Cisneros:
[crosstalk 00:01:10] that, yes.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Mrs. Cisneros I see you have some technical information on the screen. You want to go over that real
quick?
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 2 of 18
Jenny Cisneros:
Yes, on entering the hearing if you'd like to please right click on the blue square with the three dots to
change your name. If you are from the public please write that in there. Or if you're from the application
side, go ahead and write that in. Then, there's also the participation, the hearing, which is the raise your
right hand, or raise your hand on the participant screen when roll call is prompted.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you. All right, so by state law I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's admitted
into the record during the hearing. That way everyone who's participating knows exactly what
information is being considered for the final decision. Ahead of the hearing I get a copy of the staff
report, and I'm going to ... Actually, Mrs. Cisneros am I a co-host here or not? I was trying to share my
screen. Oh, there I am. Okay I'm set. Nope, I can't share a screen yet. Can you make me share screen?
Jenny Cisneros:
Yes.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay.
Jenny Cisneros:
Mr. Harrison, if you would like me also, I have the exhibits handy if you'd like me to put those on the
screen.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, I got it right now, right here. Well actually, Mrs. Cisneros, do you have the exhibits 1 through 39
listed out? On the staff report it's-
Jenny Cisneros:
I have all the exhibits.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, okay yeah-
Jenny Cisneros:
[crosstalk 00:02:32].
Mr. Olbrechts:
... I'll stop share and I'll let you put that up then.
Jenny Cisneros:
Sure.
Mr. Olbrechts:
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 3 of 18
Okay. As I was saying about yeah, state law I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's admitted into
the record, and staff has giving me a staff report, which includes, looks like was it 59 exhibits? 55
exhibits, sorry. Mrs. Cisneros is scrolling down through, there's a lot of information there, a lot of traffic
reports going back and forth, and arborist reports and shoreline analysis, just the whole gamut of
information. This looks like to be a fairly complicated project. At this point I'm just going to ask if anyone
needs to see any of those documents, or if anyone objects to their entry in the record, please at this
point let us know by raising your virtual hand. That should be the button at the bottom of your screen.
Or, un-muting yourself and saying, "I object." Do I have any objections to exhibits 1 through 55 getting
into the record? Okay, hearing then there admitted then. Mr. Close, I take it you want to get the core
maps admitted?
Clark Close:
I do, Mr. Examiner, yes.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. So I'll make exhibit 56 are the City of Renton core maps, which are available on the city's website.
Oh, I see it. Actually, Mrs. Cisneros has them numbered already, so let's stick to that. Exhibit 56 would
be the staff PowerPoint, which Mr. Clark will be presenting to us shortly. Exhibit 57 are those core maps
that I was talking about that are available at that web link there, that officially zoning maps, aerial
photographs that kind of thing. Then finally, Google Earth also aerial photographs of the project site.
Any objections over exhibits 56 through 58? Okay, hearing none, those are admitted as well. Mr. Clark,
let me swear you in at this point. Just raise your right hand. You swear, affirm tell the truth, nothing but
the truth in this proceeding?
Clark Close:
I do.
Mr. Olbrechts:
All right. Okay, go ahead.
Clark Close:
Okay, can everybody see my screen?
Mr. Olbrechts:
Yeah, just came up.
Clark Close:
All right, are you looking at the one that has just the slides on it? Or does it have the presenter view as
well?
Mr. Olbrechts:
I guess I see you and the slides.
Clark Close:
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 4 of 18
Okay. All right. There we go. All right, thank you Mr. Examiner. Clark Close, senior planner, City of
Renton current planning division. Thanks for being here this afternoon. As you mentioned this is for
Cedar River Apartments. This is the public hearing for Cedar River Apartments, LUA19-0001621. Thank
you for putting exhibits 1 through 58 into the record. First slide here is just a quick overview of what's
being proposed. So, SRM Development LLC is requesting master site plan review, hearing site plan
review for phases one and two, a shoreline substantial development permit as well for the proposed
mixed use development located near I405 on SR169.
Clark Close:
The proposal would include a three phased project with the first two phases being a two to five story
building with 481 attached dwelling with approximately 4,852 square feet of retail in building B. The
residential density of the proposal would result in approximately 39 dwellings per acre. A third phase
would include 25,000 square foot office building at the corner of Cedar River Park Drive and Maple
Valley Highway. The completed project would include an estimated ... Oh, we've got a couple of folks
wanting to enter in as well Jenny. So if those pop up could you please admit them?
Jenny Cisneros:
Yes, of course.
Clark Close:
Thank you. All right. So, the applicant's proposing 761 vehicle parking spaces, 56 of those would be
surface parking, and the remainder would be provided in structural parking within the residential
building and/or below the office building. The applicant is proposing some shoreline restoration, which
we'll get into, which includes the restoration of, or retention rather of approximately 34 trees,
construction of a pedestrian trail near Cedar River within the boundaries of the subject property. The
applicant is requesting to fill some fill activities in the 100 year flood plain along the Cedar River that
would be mitigated with onsite compensatory flood storage.
Clark Close:
That was just a quick overview, and now we're going to jump into a little bit more detail on the following
slides. This is a 12.5 acre parcel. It's located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway. The comprehensive plan
designation in zoning is commercial office and residential, or COR, and the site falls within the urban
design district C. Of the two aerial maps, join the parcels and their locations within the city, so south of
Lake Washington, as I mentioned, near I405 and the Maple Valley Highway on ramp.
Clark Close:
The site was a former Stoneway sand and gravel site. The site's currently vacant. It borders a couple of
streets, which I've shown in the Google maps there. Some of the notable sites surrounding the subject
property we've got the Renton Community Center, Henry Moses Aquatic Center and Cedar River Park to
the north. There's a Cedar Place office building to the east. You have Cedar River to the south, and then
to the west you've got Renton Community Center, Cedar River Park and the Carco Theater. The last
image there is just Bing maps, it's just showing the parcel from above.
Clark Close:
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 5 of 18
Being home to the former Stoneway sites, the site is currently a compacted gravel lot with very minimal
vegetation. The majority of the site is relatively flat. It gradually slopes from the northeast to the south
with an elevated change of approximately 20 feet across the site. The site is mapped with a number of
critical areas including [inaudible 00:09:10] high intensity Cedar River reach sea designations, special
flood hazard area, FEMA zone AE, severe channel migration zone as mapped by King County, flood way
bullhead protection zone one, regulated slopes and high seismic hazards.
Clark Close:
The proposed multi-family building, which is builds A and B would include a two to five story buildings,
and at approximately 67 feet in height from the highest point, meaning the top of the roof to the
finished grade. Property's located within the airport influence area and the traffic pattern zone six for
the Renton Municipal Airport. However, when you combine all the airport height restrictions it happens
to be about five feet above what is allowed in the COR zone. The applicant is proposing a very unique
building shape at over 1100 feet in length from end to end. Buildings A and buildings B, the units
themselves would wrap around construction parking areas and then you would have wings that flare out
from those structured parking areas to allow for modulation, some courtyards. The courtyards would be
south facing, oriented towards the Cedar River. The structured parking enclosures would aid in
minimizing the project's aesthetics by screening it from the public view.
Clark Close:
In between the hidden parking structures the applicant is proposing a building step down used to
designate to the main entrance to the residential buildings, which will include a leasing office and some
common indoor areas for tenants. The building also contains a distinct base with glazing storefront
windows, clear entries, awnings, roof overhangs, those such as broken shared roof, siding materials,
more formed exposed concrete, vinyl windows, balconies, two railings, some color transitions, as I
mentioned earlier, some courtyards. The combination of modulation windows, covered decks, on the
fifth floor some awnings, material color contrasts would aid in reducing the bulk of the structures and
add some visual interest to the project.
Clark Close:
The applicant is proposing, as I mentioned, to fill portions of the subject's property flood plain to
accommodate the location of the proposed buildings and infrastructure. The applicant has submitted a
conditional letter of map revision based on the fill form, and that's included in exhibit 26 that if
approved by the Federal Regency Management Agency result in the building's exclusion from the flood
hazard areas as indicated in the firm map. The compensatory flood storage plan proposes to add
approximately 883 cubic yards of fill to be placed within the existing flood plain and excavate
approximately 1,374 cubic yards to provide that compensatory flood storage.
Clark Close:
They're also proposing to lower the bulk head on the riverside wall, which would provide approximately
2,126 cubic yards of flood storage along with some restoration planting, which we'll jump into on the
next slide. Is expected to restore flood plains [inaudible 00:12:39] and improve habitat. As a condition of
the project, or at the conclusion of the project the applicant is expected to a net increase approximately
2,616 cubic yards of flood storage. Currently, nearly all the subject property site consists of primarily of
impervious surface due to the site's former concrete [inaudible 00:13:07]. There are 53 remaining trees
on site, of which that is proposing to retain 34 trees along the shoreline.
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 6 of 18
Clark Close:
The detailed shoreline planting plan is proposed within 100 foot vegetation, conservation buffer. Then,
landward of the 100 foot vegetation conservation buffer the applicant is proposing a landscape planting
plan with a variety of trees including 188 new deciduous trees, or 137 evergreen trees, shrubs and
ground cover along the property's parameter, parking lot, planter strips and exterior amenity areas.
There are two proposed primary points of access. You got one full one from Cedar River Park Drive, and
a second limited access right in right out from the driveway off of SR169. Maple Valley Highway is
owned and maintained by Washington State department of transportation. It is classified as principle
arterial by the city.
Clark Close:
Cedar River Park Drive is the typical City of Renton street and is classified as a commercial access street.
A third access would be a fire lane access, is proposed to go around the residential buildings, or west of
building A and south of buildings A and B. It would also connect to SR169. Updated traffic impact
analysis was completed in July 2020 by William Pop Associates following an independent transportation
analysis by Transpo Group and comments from Watch Dog as part of the project overview, rather is part
of the project review. Additional work was completed by the Transpo Group for review of the project
transportation related impacts, resulting in the Cedar River Apartments independent transportation and
mitigation analysis dated May 7, 2021.
Clark Close:
Key findings from that independent analysis indicate that six study intersections would operate at a level
of service D or better during the AM and PM hours with the exception of the intersection of Bronson
Way North and Houser Way North, which would operate at a level of service F, with or without the
project. In addition, the North 3rd Street, Sunset Boulevard North intersection will drop from a level of
service D to a level of service E with the addition of the project related traffic in the peak hours. As a
result of the anticipated level of service changes, we need to address potential queuing issues at the
intersection of Cedar River Park Drive and Maple Valley Highway. As part of the environmental CEPA
review there were three transportation mitigation measures included, and those are included in
recommended conditions.
Clark Close:
I'll just go though those real quick here. The first one is to reconfigure the northbound Cedar River Drive
to provide dual left turn lanes with a shared right turn lane, or curb lane. To support the new
channelization the applicant would be required to install signal detections, signal head modifications
and overhead signage on the east side [inaudible 00:16:27] at the intersection of Cedar River Park Drive
and Maple Valley Highway. The applicant would submit plans to construct these outside improvements
with civil construction permitted. That would be reviewed by the development engineering and
transportation staff prior to permit issuance.
Clark Close:
The second transportation, a condition or mitigation there was that the applicant would fully fund and
install an configuration of adaptive traffic control system, or ATCS, split cycle offset optimization
technique, also known as SCOOT, along intersections impacted by the proposal including North 3rd
Street, Monterey Drive Northeast, and those identified in the Cedar River Apartments independent
transportation and mitigation analysis, which is exhibit 34. That was prepared by the Transpo Group
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 7 of 18
dated May 27, 2021. Insulation, configuration and operation of the SCOOT system would be completed
prior to a temporary certificate of occupancy for the first building.
Clark Close:
The third transportation mitigation measure identified that the applicant would identify and propose
potential traffic calming measures to be located within the Cedar River parking lot to discourage tenants
from essentially cutting through Cedar River Park. Those traffic calming measures would be installed
prior to TCO of the first building. The proposal has passed the city's traffic concurrency test, per RNC4-6-
070D, which is exhibit 36 and is based on a test of city wide transportation plan. Consideration of growth
levels, including level of service test and the transportation plan, cited specific improvements, and
future payment of transportation impact fees due to the increase in traffic related impacts created by
the development.
Clark Close:
So moving on here, as mentioned. The proposed project would be constructed over three phases. The
sight line [inaudible 00:18:40] includes internal street with a cul-de-sac in the center. As you can see
there in the site plan. The internal street runs east, west between the future medical office building and
the apartment buildings. This site design allows for safe transitions and linkages between the uses of the
budding public streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Site plan includes a mix of active and passive
open spaces, including pedestrian trails, walkways, boardwalks, multi-purpose sports courts and
courtyards. Once constructed, mixed used buildings would provide use to Cedar River.
Clark Close:
Surface parking, structured parking and below grade parking would also reduce off-site parking impacts
to the surrounding neighborhood. During the environment review the city act as the lead agency.
Environmental review committee issues a determination of non-significance mitigated for the Cedar
River Apartments on June 17 this year. A 14 day public comment period commenced on June 17 and
ended on July 1, 2021. No appeals. Both the threshold determination had been filed as of date. Staff did
receive public comment emails along the way. For example, Nicole Robinson with 1B rather, that's
included in exhibit 47 to address public comments. The staff report, which is the hearing examiner's staff
report and the CEPA environmental staff report addressed a majority of those concerns, and those
concerns identified were the [inaudible 00:20:32] protection zone, shoreline regulations, flood zones,
refuse and recycling collection, traffic impacts and tree retention.
Clark Close:
At the conclusion rather, there were eight mitigation measures related to geo technical work and
compliance with WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, archeology survey, road work, signal work
and traffic calling. Staff concurs with these mitigation measure and as I mentioned included them as
recommended condition number one. Some of the integral project features include shoreline
restoration and public access in the form of walking trails and [inaudible 00:21:22] platform. Restoration
of shoreline area to create habitat where, as I mentioned, not a lot currently exists.
Clark Close:
Buildings A and B would be constructed with high quality materials and contain modulation and
articulation features that are proportionate with scale in relationship to the pedestrians on the street.
Buildings A and B would provide architectural front facing features along Cedar River facade, which
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 8 of 18
would avoid turning its back to the river. The site plan provides compatible transition to future phase
three. Portions of the site provided that the applicant complies with current code and conditions of
approval, which will have given to here in a minute, and pedestrian vehicle conflicts are minimized with
site-to-site circulation and limited curb cuts.
Clark Close:
If all recommended conditions of approval are complied with the proposal would be consistent with
comprehensive plan, the zoning development standards, the design district standards and guidelines,
and the master plan and site plan review. If all conditions of approval are complied with and proposal
they would comply with critical areas, shoreline master program, the visibility and impact of public
services. So, staff is recommending approval of Cedar River Apartments master site plan. Application, as
depicted in the Cedar River Apartments site plan, which is exhibit three, subject to 25 conditions of
approval. I do want to get into one of those conditions if you'll allow it.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
Clark Close:
Condition number 22 states that the applicant shall demonstrate ADA requirements for the proposed six
foot stair and walkway with [inaudible 00:23:27] shoreline variants application for the expanded with
above four feet. RMC allows a few different trail widths within the shoreline depending on which section
you're referencing. Under general standards RMC4-3-090D3B8 view obstructions and visual quality
stairs and walkways within the shoreline buffers are limited to four feet and can be increased to six feet
in width, where ADA requirements apply under RMC4-3-090D7810 you've got shoreline books standards
under the table, know it's 10. This allows a pathways up to six feet wide within the high intensity Cedar
River shoreline.
Clark Close:
The applicant originally proposed a six foot wide pathway and stairs within the shoreline as a part of the
comprehensive shoreline improvement plan. The shoreline restoration efforts are anticipated to
increase the overall ecological functions and values of the shoreline. The activity would not result in a
[inaudible 00:24:33] of ecological functions of our trail, in bicycle master plan under 2020 parks and
recreation and natural areas plan includes pathways along the Cedar River with public access. From a
practical standpoint staff is proposing to remove this recommended condition and allow the applicant to
move forward with the six foot wide pathway that promotes two foot wide, or two way foot traffic on a
six foot wide trail. The wider trail should result in fewer folks stepping off the path, which would result in
a greater degree of protection of the vegetation proposed along the trail, and thereby should increase
the ecological functions of values within the shoreline. With that, I am happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. So well on the last condition, you're proposing to strike a condition? Was that 22 you said?
Clark Close:
22, yup.
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 9 of 18
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, got that. Yeah, just some quick ones. I'm still wading through all those traffic reports, but
I was curious for the intersections where the LOS will be below D after this project is completed, are all
the mitigation measures proposed for traffic impacts going to, basically eliminate any intersection delay
caused by the project for those intersections? Do you know off the top of your head?
Clark Close:
That is a good question. I noticed Matt jumped back on here. Matt was the original project manager for
this and he'll have a better understanding of whether or not the impacts increase the level of service, or
if they're just there to improve traffic circulation. So, I'll turn it over to Matt for a second.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear you in Mr. Herrera. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Matt Herrera:
I do.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, go ahead.
Matt Herrera:
Thank you Mr. Examiner. Matt Herrera, current planning manager. As Clark had mentioned I worked on
this project for the first two years, and then handed off to Clark for the end here. But in our exhaustive, I
would say traffic analysis, I should say it started with an applicant sponsored traffic impact analysis and
then went to an independent review of that traffic analysis. Then, finally earlier this year the city
contracted with a third party Transpo Group to do their own independent transportation analysis. The
adaptive control mitigation measure that is part of the CEPA document here, we did not have, I guess
the most sophisticated model to run to see if that actual adaptive control system would improve the
grading level of the intersections. But the analysis did find that it would approve, I believe the overall
system. But as far as the grading per intersection, that type of analysis after project was not provided
with the SCOOT system. It was a overall corridor and a system planning exercise. With the, I guess
limited modeling that we did with that, that is the conclusion.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Thanks Mr. Herrera. Let's see. Then another couple quick questions resulting from the
public comment letter that staff received, there was a concern about the capacity to provide water for
development projects. Mr. Close, are you aware of any capacity concerns for the city's water system at
this point?
Clark Close:
I am not, but I will ask Mr. Sippo join us and let us apprise us that information.
Mr. Olbrechts:
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 10 of 18
Okay. Mr. Sippo, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Michael Sippo:
I do.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, go ahead.
Michael Sippo:
Yes. As part of the development engineering review on the land use application Public Works was
informed and brought in on the process, and no comments were received from our water department
that there would be any capacity issues, or constraints with public water.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. I mean, are you knowledgeable in general about whether there are any longterm capacity
concerns for the utility at all? I mean, are we at anywhere close to that being an issue at this point?
Michael Sippo:
No.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
Michael Sippo:
I have not heard of any longterm issues.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you Mr. Sippo. Then, finally Mr. Close there was a concern over the aquifer and I
guess that landscaping chemicals, that kind of stuff. Do the city's aquifer protection regulations address
post construction activities of that nature?
Clark Close:
They would. So the city has very strict aquifer protections, code requirements in place, which would
mitigate for any impacts that they would have upon [inaudible 00:29:51] zone one.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Is zone one a particularly sensitive zone in terms of-
Clark Close:
Yeah. It has a greater degree of sensitivity than zone two.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. All right, good to know. Thank you.
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 11 of 18
Clark Close:
You're welcome.
Mr. Olbrechts:
All right, let's move on to applicants. Applicants, do you want to say anything at this point? This is your
turn.
Andy Loof:
Yeah, hello, this is Andy Loof with SRM Development.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, Mr. Loof let me swear you in there. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Andy Loof:
Yes.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, and you're choosing to participate just by phone today, is that correct?
Andy Loof:
Yes. Well I can see you on the screen-
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
Andy Loof:
... but I'm on audio on my telephone.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, sounds good. All right, how do you spell your last name, sir, for the record?
Andy Loof:
L-O-O-F.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Alrighty then, go ahead.
Andy Loof:
Thank you. First of all I just want to thank, I'm glad Matt Herrera was on the call today because we've
been working with Matt for several years here, and I just want to compliment Matt and now Clark on
the work they've done on our behalf, and on the behalf of the City of Renton. It's a large complex
project and I think that the staff has represented the city's interest, and ours, while working to solutions
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 12 of 18
through the development process. So appreciate that very much. I think what I just want to say is, we
think the project will be a significant benefit to the city on multiple fronts.
Andy Loof:
This complex will transform the site of what was the long time Stoneway sand and gravel plant along the
Cedar River. I think we're providing a great set back from the river, 100 set back from the river, restoring
the adjacent shoreline buffers, adding the trails as Clark indicated in his presentation. We're providing
the traffic mitigation measures in three elements with the Cedar Park parking lot improvements. Also,
with the additional left hand turn lane on Cedar Park Drive, and with the SCOOT system that Clark had
mentioned. The other point that we want to bring up is that this is going to bring a good amount of
workforce, housing in the City of Renton and to the East side, and a high quality project.
Andy Loof:
Just real quickly we're real proud of this design. As Matt indicated it's a wrap project, which is relatively
innovative. Not done a lot, because it takes a pretty good size decent property in order to do it, but it's
where the parking garage, as Clark has indicated, is wrapped by residential units, thereby hiding the
parking garage from view, which will really shows nice elevations, both on the river side and on the
Maple Valley Highway side. So, we're generally in agreement with the city's staff report, and we're
looking forward to moving forward with the rest of our development permits. I think that's it from the
SRM side. I'm not sure if any other of our development team would want to comment. But thank you
very much.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, thank you Mr. Loof. All right, does anyone else from the development team, the applicant want to
say anything at this point?
Ray Liaw:
Yes, I'll jump in.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ray Liaw:
[inaudible 00:33:37].
Mr. Olbrechts:
All right, let me swear you in there. Do you swear, affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Ray Liaw:
I do.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Who are you and how do you spell your last name for the record?
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 13 of 18
Ray Liaw:
Absolutely, my name is Ray Liaw and I am legal council for the applicant-
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, okay.
Ray Liaw:
... SRM [crosstalk 00:33:56]. Thank you. Just to echo Andy's comments, we appreciate the staff's time on
this project. It's been a long haul and we're very excited to be here. We do have one concern though
with one of the conditions, specifically condition 1D that we wanted to raise before you this, are in the
morning or afternoon? Morning I guess still here. [inaudible 00:34:21] condition 1D really has to do with
compliance with the WRIA 8 salmon conservation plan. We have some concerns with respects to the
level of specificity that has been put to this condition. Let me address that here.
Ray Liaw:
At the [inaudible 00:34:38] I just want to know this was a bit of a surprise condition for us [inaudible
00:34:43] review. In our many earlier discussions with staff and meetings we believed that our storm
water, which is really what this condition is addressed at, was meeting the technical requirements of the
2017 Renton Stormwater Manual. In particular, this project is exempt from certain requirements such as
flow control and providing quantitative analysis in certain areas based on location around Cedar River
and nearby connection to Washington. The condition that 1D sets forth though has to do with including
qualitative and quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance with this WRIA 8 salmon conservation
plan.
Ray Liaw:
We do acknowledge that in the manual special requirement number one does cross reference salmon
conservation plans is effectively a part of the manual that need to be complied with. We think this is a
little unusual, but document to cross reference, the reasons I'll explain here going forward. But we're
not necessarily challenging that per se. But we are requesting some clarification. At the outside end,
WRIA 8 salmon conservation plan is primarily a policy document that addresses the entirety of the WRIA
8 region, which goes well beyond the Cedar River along which we're situated with this project.
Ray Liaw:
In contrast, special requirement number one of Renton's Surface Water Drainage Manual states that if a
project is in an area that is addressed within a standing conservation plan, then the project shall comply
with the specific drainage requirements for that area. We think at a minimum the condition here should
be clarified that the analysis that we're to address on our technical information report should only be for
those applicable portions of the WRIA 8 plan, not for the entirety of the plan, which addresses other
regional water systems that go beyond the Cedar River itself.
Ray Liaw:
The second concern we have is with the condition that we provide a quantitative analysis demonstrating
compliance with the WRIA 8 plan. In referencing back to special [inaudible 00:37:02] number one of the
Renton's Surface Water Drainage Manual, it does specify that we need to comply with drainage
requirements specified in this conservation plan. But in our review of that plan, we don't see a site
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 14 of 18
specific drainage requirement. This appears to be largely a policy document with a list of comprehensive
actions for the Cedar Rive, which is referenced in the staff report, but does comprehend listed actions
again are really policy driven and talk about long range planning efforts that jurisdictions should be
complying with.
Ray Liaw:
As a second [inaudible 00:37:41] project we have some concerns about what we're supposed to be
doing to demonstrate quantitatively how we're in compliance with a document that doesn't set
quantitative standards either at a policy, or at a project specific level. We're willing to take qualitative
analysis of our project in specific of the Storm Water design in reference to these actions and objectives
that are described in the Cedar River. But we would ask that the condition that we provide a
quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance be struck because there aren't any quantitative
standards by which we can [crosstalk 00:38:18] how we would demonstrate compliance for this plan.
The other requested change would just [inaudible 00:38:24] to the reference that we would only use to
demonstrate compliance with those applicable [inaudible 00:38:28] of the plan specific to the Cedar
River.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. I'll let, oh sorry. Sorry about that. I'll let staff respond to that when we get back to staff rebuttal,
and then we'll talk about how to work out some revisions to that condition if necessary. All right, thanks
for your testimony Mrs. Liaw. Let's move on then to public comments at this point. I think we're done
with the development team, correct? All right, let's see, does anyone from the public want to say
anything at this point? If you do, the easiest way to draw our attention is to raise your virtual hand. Just
click that hand button at the bottom of your screen. I'm not seeing any. Or, unmute yourself and say,
"I'd like to participate." Mrs. Cisneros, you want to maybe flash your email address and phone number
in case anyone wants to say something at this point? I should ask Mrs. Cisneros, do you see any
members of the public? I'm assuming there are since we had a couple people join.
Jenny Cisneros:
There may be three members of the public, plus two phone numbers and Melanie.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. So there you have it. If you're having trouble getting our attention to say something at this point,
just go ahead and phone Mrs. Cisneros at 971-217-9357, or send her an email at
JSCisneros@retinwa.gov. Then, Mrs. Cisneros will let me know and we'll figure out how to get you
involved there. Anyway, not seeing anyone there yet, so let's move onto staff rebuttal. Mr. Close, what
about the applicant's concerns over condition 1D?
Clark Close:
Yeah, thank you Mr. Examiner. Condition 1D stems from one of the environmental committees super
mitigation measures. So it comes from an original staff report, which is exhibit one. However, that stems
also from the advisory notes, which are exhibit 39. We've got Michael Sippo, city civil engineer that
originally made those comments, so I will turn it over to him to further clarify the city's position on
meeting those CEPA mitigation measure.
Mr. Olbrechts:
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 15 of 18
Okay. Mr. Sippo?
Michael Sippo:
Thank you Clark and Mr. Examiner. Yeah, there were two questions that were brought up. The first one
had to do with the applicable area about the WRIA 8. Yes, to concur with the applicant's response, it
would be limited to those areas immediately adjacent and down the stream of the project. Not for the
entire resource inventory area. The second question had to do with the analysis and specifically the
quantitative analysis portion. The technical information report, the preliminary technical information
report did go on to address portions of the salmon conservation which would, as adopted by the 2017
Renton Water Surface Design manual do include calculations that have to deal with flow control, water
velocities leaving the site, timidity. A lot of those are quantifiable calculations that are provided. What
we're looking for is in conjunction with what is required in the calculations for the project is that the
engineer and project biologist provide any sort of recommendations, mitigations, or confirmations that
the storm water leaving the site does not harm the salmon habitat.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Well yeah, I guess I have a little concern because yeah, I didn't realize looking at 1D these are
CEPA mitigation measures. Of course, CEPA hasn't been appealed, so we're not in a position to modify it,
except through an addendum, which, and you can only do an addendum of course if it doesn't materially
change the conditions of approval. I mean, I'm wondering maybe could the applicant and staff work out
an addendum that clarifies what staff wanted there. It sounds like it's just an issue of not disagreeing
with what's being required, but disagreeing with the understanding of what that language means. Is that
something maybe we could have the applicant and staff work out in the next day or two, and then
submit that to me for approval| then I can add the addendum as a requirement for compliance. Mrs.
Liaw, would that work for you?
Ray Liaw:
That would work for us, yeah. This was something that came up a little later in the game, and we'd be
pleased to work with staff on getting some [inaudible 00:43:19].
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Mr. Sippo is that something you'd be willing to do?
Michael Sippo:
Certainly.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, so how about, how much time do the parties need? Maybe just a couple days until end of work on
Thursday? I don't want to delay this project more than necessary that you two try to work out a
language for a CEPA addendum and then send that to me and I can make that part of the project
requirements. Will that work?
Ray Liaw:
That works for us.
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 16 of 18
Mr. Olbrechts:
Then Mr. Sippo is that all right?
Michael Sippo:
Yes, it is.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, so let's set a deadline for Thursday, 5:00PM then. Just email me an agreed upon addendum
language. If you can't agree, then just go ahead and write something up as to what you're not agreeing
on and what you'd like to see in there. Then I'll put something together for the final decision. Mr. Sippo,
you're okay doing this through the CEPA addendum process? Because again this is already part of an
NDNS and we really can't change it, or modify it except through a procedure like that. Would that work
for the city?
Michael Sippo:
I'll defer to Matt Herrera for that question.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, Mr. Herrera, would that work?
Matt Herrera:
Yes, it would potentially work. I would say that our CEPA addendums are handled by our environmental
review committee.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
Matt Herrera:
So, that would need to be taken to the environmental review committee. Is there a possibility of adding
an, I guess an addendum, or an extra condition that's associated with the CEPA mitigation measure? If
it's just about hashing out clarifications on what that review needs to look like, I'm wondering if there's a
potential, I guess faster solution than having to go back to the [inaudible 00:45:01] committee-
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, I see.
Matt Herrera:
... an applicant paying a fee.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Yeah.
Matt Herrera:
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 17 of 18
It would leave the record-
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
Matt Herrera:
... open for quite some time.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Yeah, it's a bit involved. Well, how about I just let you applicant and staff work out how you want to
present that revision. If you come up with a simpler solution that'll probably be fine. Would that work?
Just let me know how you want to do it and then by Thursday if you can. If we need additional time to
go through the process of modification we can set that up.
Matt Herrera:
Yeah, if we could potentially come up with an agreement and principle I think that's a good solution.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Yeah. Then, of course if you need additional time just let me know and we'll extend that
out. Is there any members of the public out there, anyone out there who objects to me leaving the
record open for a couple days to discuss a clarification of 1D and a potential process for that? Does
anyone have any objection, or anyone want to be apprise of how that's handled as it goes through? Just
raise your virtual hand if you do. I didn't see anyone who wants to be included in that particular loop, so
that's good. That makes it easier. Okay, so applicants, you get final comments. Any final comments you
want to make before we wrap it up for today?
Ray Liaw:
Andy, do you have anything you want to say?
Andy Loof:
No, nothing from me. Thanks very much-
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
Andy Loof:
... for your time.
Mr. Olbrechts:
All right. So we'll leave the record open until this Thursday. I guess that would be the 12th of August at
5:00PM for applicant and staff to work out some clarifications to condition 1D, and also the processes as
to how to put those clarifications into effect. That'll just be emailed to myself. If any members of the
public out there, if you want to see that go ahead and email Mrs. Cisneros and she'll put you in the loop
as well. I think beyond that, unless there are any other concerns, I think we're done for this afternoon.
This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here.
Cedar River Apartments Page 18 of 18
All right, seeing none. Thanks for your participation and I'll be looking forward to that additional
information. Once that comes in on Thursday I'll have 10 business days, that's two weeks to issue the
final decision. Thanks again, and we're adjourned for this afternoon.
Speaker 1:
Recording stopped.
Mr. Olbrechts:
There we go.