HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Reconsideration Decision1
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge
Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal
LUA14-000241
)))))))))
FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
SUMMARY
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-
family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143rd
Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (“MDNS”) issued under the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) was consolidated with the review of the
preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is
denied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger and Judy
Paulsen on July 30, 2014. Other than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical errors
and adding some clarifications, the original July 18, 2014 remains the same except for the added
section entitled “Reconsideration Response”, which follows this “Summary” section.
The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the
contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service (“LOS”) standards adopted by the
City Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic
congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted
LOS.
The City’s unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe
congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the
City’s transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City’s LOS is largely 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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the
state’s Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of
population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation
infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only
be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20%
of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the
improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing
an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City’s
adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the
applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council,
unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant.
In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an
intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents,
this money has to be expended in five years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that
those monies will not be expended in five years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS
standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal
any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any
such mitigation, the City’s adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessing
congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) of
this decision.
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
As previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014.
The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this
“Reconsideration Request” section.
Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration. His concerns have already been
addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced
planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms
as possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that
suffer from traffic congestion. Mr. Paulsen’s reconsideration request provides an opportunity to
provide further clarity on the issue.
Mr. Paulsen’s first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.110(2) prohibits the approval
of a subdivision unless a city or county makes a finding that “appropriate” provision is made for
“…streets, roads, alleys, other public ways…” This finding was made in three places in the Enclave
decision. Finding of Fact No. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by “adequate”
infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate how this determination was made
for specific types of infrastructure. Finding of Fact No. 4(E) elaborates how this finding was made for
roads. Conclusion of Law No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in
response to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), which requires that subdivisions “[m]ake adequate provision for ….
streets, alleys, other public ways…”
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3
It could be argued that a finding of “adequate” public facilities is not the same as a finding of
“appropriate” public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.110(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate such
parsimonious word play. “Adequate” within the City’s regulatory standards for subdivision review
clearly encompasses the “appropriate” criterion of RCW 58.17.110(2). The intent of the City Council
is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it. It can be presumed that the City Council
intends to have its regulations interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law. The RMC only
requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW
58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(I)(1). Consequently, to the extent possible, the subdivision criteria of
the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.110 requirements in order to ensure that a
subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly
easy to apply this interpretation to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that
provision is almost a direct quote from RCW 58.17.110(2). The City Council clearly intended RMC 4-
7-080(B)(4) to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2). Conclusion of Law No. 7
of the Enclave decision finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required finding of
RCW 58.17.110(2) has also been made1.
The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen’s reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156
Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff. The
original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged these problems and explained that the preliminary
plat application still had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service
standards. The decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any
additional mitigation or deny the project on the basis of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will
be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen’s reconsideration request.
In short, Mr. Paulsen wants a finding that the proposal will not be served by “appropriate” streets
because the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts
the City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably
doesn’t have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for taking its property
without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is unlikely that the state legislature
intended cities and counties to be put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110. A far more
reasonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted by the courts is to construe a road
as “appropriate” for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City’s adopted LOS
standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS
standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require. Requiring more than the
adopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City, which cannot be ignored because the
City is required to fill in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be filled by developers. In this case,
the road system meets the City’s LOS, which is why roads were determined to be adequate.
The reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because
of the strict rulings of state and federal courts in the application of the takings clause of the Fifth
Amendment, i.e. government cannot take property without just compensation. There are two
1 The references to “adequate” in this decision will also be modified to include “appropriate” to remove any doubt
on the issue.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4
significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make
“growth pay for growth”. The first limitation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an
unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that
exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998).
For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant
can only be made to pay for 10% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only
make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl
intersection.
So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City
only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection
“appropriate” at its current LOS, as advocated by Mr. Paulsen: (1) the City can pay for the remaining
costs of the intersection improvements itself; or (2) it can deny the preliminary plat application.
As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and
simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid
denying a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would
likely not result in a very efficient expenditure of public funds. The LOS standards required to be
adopted by the Growth Management Act (“GMA”) were designed to avoid this randomized form of
fiscal planning. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and
20 year general budget that identifies where the City will get the funds to finance the LOS it has
adopted. By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the
GMA essentially places cities and counties in the position of only adopting LOS standards they can
afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for measuring whether
a road is “appropriate” to serve a proposed subdivision.
The second course of action, denial, implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by
the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose
development moratoria of unreasonable length. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg’l
Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or
two will be difficult to justify. As noted in Mr. Paulsen’s reconsideration request, the City’s funding
priorities for the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection suggest that needed improvements won’t be
constructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave
SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection, the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development
that would contribute any significant traffic to that intersection. The applicant would be in a very good
position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium.
In understanding the use of LOS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on
additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context. Although the Renton LOS
standard is somewhat unique in that it doesn’t adopt the more traditional “ABCDEF” system of review,
the Renton system isn’t at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as
adequate or appropriate. Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LOS of F for
portions of their transportation system. Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to
only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to
accept the fact that there simply aren’t enough funds available to improve an intersection or street
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5
segment above a failing level of service. So even if Renton had adopted a letter system for its LOS,
Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its
limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city.
Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard
is the best tool for assessing whether a road is “appropriate” to serve a development for purposes of
subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by Mr. Paulsen would place the City
in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn’t have to upgrading all failing
intersections for new development beyond the applicants’ proportionate share, or paying the applicants
millions of dollars in taking claims. The LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and
detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its
transportation system. It is the only2 practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner
that recognizes that there is a limit to how much money is available to address the problem.
TESTIMONY
SEPA Appellant Testimony
Mr. Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the
city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes
the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has
continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project.
Additionally, he feels the city’s public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was
misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to
provide comments regarding the project because of the city’s failures at providing information.
Applicant Testimony
Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being
traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the
traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and
how it will not negatively impact traffic.
Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraffEx. His firm prepared the
traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2,
2 One other potential option that hasn’t been addressed due to space limitations is to reduce the density of the
proposed subdivision. The R4 designation does not have a minimum density requirement. However, the GMA
requires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population projections and a city’s zoning designations are
designed to accommodate these numbers. Further, the GMA requires residential development within cities to occur
at “urban” densities which at a minimum is usually four dwelling units per acre. Routinely requiring reduced
densities to reduce traffic impacts would arguably violate these GMA principals. Further, in this case the
intersection at issue is already operating at LOS F so that from the standpoint of “appropriate” roads it makes no
substantial difference if the subdivision has a density of one unit per acre as opposed to four units per acre.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6
attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and
performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has
defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those
that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the
intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx
to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE.
This latter intersection is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original
study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable
level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new
project. TraffEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak
hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue
intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic.
This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d).
Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th
Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north-side access street will
operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will
operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and
156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus
TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new
conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of
service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly
reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77
peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is
timed. The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft. which is north of the
stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected.
In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project
will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour.
Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am
peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum
being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst
operating conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour.
Mr. Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted
that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am
peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval.
Under cross examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers
both queue time and opposing traffic.
Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5
percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very
rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic.
City Testimony
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7
In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City
Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record
and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims
other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulsen was able to understand the
process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulsen does not have
standing to raise this issue because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative
DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize
an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold.
The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment
period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process.
Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter
during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21).
Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton’s traffic study guidelines, the
policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word “should.”
However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic
which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm
peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She
is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For
projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor’s in Civil
Engineering and a Master’s in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard
to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak
hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before
beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In
some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction
with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd
intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if
traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at
the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a
signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The
intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the
signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the
February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal
installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014
(Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would
be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not
back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of
service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and
the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward
even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know
the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on
existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies
on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies,
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8
specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development
such as a mall being built close-by.
Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of
“should,” if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be
required.
Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was
received after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not
deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The
SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic
signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to
be installed as part of the project.
Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable
addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document
because it was outside of her Department.
Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the
city’s guidelines she is talking about the document “Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New
Development.” This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when
reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more
trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the
project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a
guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe
further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet
the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any
analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis.
Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received
after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and
noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns
about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city’s response letter into the record. The
response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date,
and location of the review hearing.
Applicant Response
Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings.
In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that
traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the
problem areas.
Appellant Response
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9
Mr. Paulsen stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city’s Notice of Application, has no
reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the
assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that “If
comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the
Hearing and present your comments.” Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their
right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In
regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulsen’s argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the
inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was
nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions.
Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an
optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one
period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance.
LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application
Staff Testimony
Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the
west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in
the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and
two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size
from 8,050sqft to 12,566sqft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sqft open space area.
There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sqft from the
subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been
recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th
Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround.
This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a
single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no
critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain
along the east property line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th,
and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter
after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was
issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over
public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant
conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant’s review found that the project would not have
significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a
signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting
that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and
ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning
regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to
be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as
protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest
will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district
is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10
submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A.
Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around
stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only 10ft and increasing the size would result
in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the 10ft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape
visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval.
In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are
policy, not code.
Applicant Testimony
Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal
Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can
achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to
traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that
current conditions warrant a signal.
Public Testimony
Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the
transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it
implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that
will intersect with 156th. If Renton’s concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area
would fail concurrency. Renton’s concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny
development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other
jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing
concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told
King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true
impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter-jurisdictional
transportation planning. Renton’s current thresholds for when developments must meet greater
review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards
smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton’s standards are not adequate. These
intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city
should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic
through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to
the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He
submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6.
Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He
submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by
62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave
development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city’s 6-
year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city
builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top
priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11
The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed
traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a
request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He
entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12.
Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd
Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs
more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at
different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the
morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will
not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements.
Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out
and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in
regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December,
2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the
intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th,
you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3
percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage
provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections;
however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a
stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic
analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is
less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as
needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial
right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order
to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on
the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a
busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for
improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow
and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to
deal with the impacts of new development.
In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance
system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural
damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have
responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be
created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is
unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project.
Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an
enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be
protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the
area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks
should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These
standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report,
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12
the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree
protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made
them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation,
route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park,
etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as
Exhibit 13.
Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years,
there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no
impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this
particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is
also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this
light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that
over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She
also noted that not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There
will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a
number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere.
These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause
problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of
Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive
but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan.
Staff Rebuttal
Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of
the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant’s arborist report. With regard to the
landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was
administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 10ft. In regard to
the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff
report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The
required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city
would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With
regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but
is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency
policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency
analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will
talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come
from.
Applicant Rebuttal
Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell’s comment about her property on
142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant
believes that the project should provide for existing public needs.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13
Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth
Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted
transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and
collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city
contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation
analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With
regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2
percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant
traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen. Mr. Carson
believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will
actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated
that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He
noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything
beyond 5 percent.
Staff Response
In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions regarding the basis for standards and
policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed
by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this
determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the
transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High’s
documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis
to make their conclusions.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a-h
Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33
Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia
Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014
Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014
Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25
Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments
Exhibit 8 Paulsen Comment Letter
Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulsen
Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan
Exhibit 11 Paulsen second request for reconsideration
Exhibit 12 City’s denial of Paulsen’s second request for reconsideration
Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet
Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant
Exhibit 15 Utility Map
Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulsen to Jill Ding
Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment
Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14
Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding
Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulsen
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC.
2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was
held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr.
Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by
the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the
appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant
to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14.
3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of
8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th
Place and SE 143rd Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (“MDNS”)
issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) was consolidated with the
review of the preliminary plat.
The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all
lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue
SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property
line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a
later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a
stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling
units per acre.
The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report
for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions
and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage,
and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be
demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by
adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, specifically including all the infrastructure
and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the
City’s Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are
addressed as follows:
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A
water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided
by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition
that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are
applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of
building permit
issuance.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage
plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application.
The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City
of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to
develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City
public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final
engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat
review.
The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas
maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and
reports that the project could impact King County’s Orting Hills Creek and service area.
Based on the City’s flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration
Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and
Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream
conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed
rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow.
The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the
southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water
quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the
City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be
required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to
help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and
drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application.
Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech
engineer, and lining may also be required.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16
D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for
residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for
residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks
and open space.
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets, roads, alleys and public
ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing.
It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested.
However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council
adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what
serves as “adequate” or “appropriate” traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review
and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without
an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly
arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of
the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City’s state
mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for
infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that
developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher
standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For
these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels
makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project
review basis.
Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring
system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to
appreciate the challenges of Renton’s system, some background on state LOS
requirements and how it more typically works is necessary.
LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act,
Chapter 36.70A (“GMA”). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS
standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that “…prohibit development
approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation
facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the
transportation plan, …” See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are
referred to as “concurrency ordinances”). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities
and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with
ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-
functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17
An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If
a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the
adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic improvements
that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so
LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application.
The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows
for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts
an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city
that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to an LOS
of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land
use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this
standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through
the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding paragraph.
Renton’s LOS standards don’t allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is
no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has
developed a city-wide LOS “index” value, based upon the total number of miles one
single-occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in
30 minutes. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26. The
Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high
occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It’s unclear
how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it
appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in
one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City’s transportation system overall
meet the 42 index value.
The City-wide focus of the LOS “index” system makes it a more questionable measuring
tool for congestion levels than the more typical “A, B, C” system used in most other
jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring
device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the
“A, B, C” LOS system, it’s fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and
deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this
may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion.
Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its
transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project
level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe
congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose
a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) 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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18
development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development
moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of
traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional.
The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City’s
concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of
congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that
the proposal will not violate the City’s transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has
disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to
contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The
proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City’s road system is adequate to handle
the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the
proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact.
It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional “A, B, C”
concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some
jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it
causes “…the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below
the standards adopted in the transportation element…” This language is taken very
literally by most jurisdictions – if an intersection is already operating below adopted
standards, the provision doesn’t apply. It only applies if a proposed development will
cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If
the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there
can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet
minimum LOS. The applicant’s traffic report applies an “A, B, C” LOS system using
professionally recognized standards3 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal
doesn’t lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All
LOS levels stay the same.
Although the City’s LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts
at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share
mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant’s traffic study, LOS “A, B,
C” standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can
be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It’s for this reason that staff was able to
require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156th Ave. SE/SE
142nd Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon
these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that
3 The applicant’s engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate LOS.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19
mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This
means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from
other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned
to the developer.
In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly
rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list
of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity.
The applicant’s traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor
was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects
identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2%
growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19.
Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were
adequately addressed by the applicant’s traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site
distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project
opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph,
so the expert testimony provided by the applicant’s expert and verified by City experts is
found more compelling.
One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement
required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd
Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the
subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to
support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4,
establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not
back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant’s traffic study
addendum was subject to review by the City’s engineering department and they voiced
no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion
to the contrary, the addendum’s conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that
the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the
intersection.
F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking
for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code.
G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional
students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary,
McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed
development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20
mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project
includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage,
including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north
of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be
adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25).
In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel
1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to
allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon
the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would
be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The
driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus.
There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the
conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary.
A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to
mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable
to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at
$6,392.00 per single family residence.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate
public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are
no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility
of use is not an issue.
There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the
trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees
cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2”) caliper or greater, must be planted. The
replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed.
The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated
with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been
determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant’s Arborist Report (Staff Report
Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that
have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required
to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install
150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton’s Tree Retention
requirements.
No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the
administrative record.
6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance (“MDNS”) was issued for the
proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration with the City on
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21
April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as
a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate
share of a signal for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the
subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the
comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment
on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn’t
include the impacts of the156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulsen
argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points
to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that
demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat
access points.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall
hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the
Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4
dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential
Low Density (RLD).
SEPA APPEAL
3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are
unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official
has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations.
Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below.
A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts.
The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an
MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See
WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS
to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the
alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold
determination, the determination made by the City’s SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to
substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii).
B. Adequate Environmental Review
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22
The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately
review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible
official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information
reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal.
An agency’s threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a
showing that “environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie
showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA.” Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State
Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community
Ass’n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several
occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental
impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental
impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of
Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and
then applied it as follows:
The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The
environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA
official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered
extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and
imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it.
Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately
analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating
that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting
an EIS.
109 Wn. App. at 23-24.
WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be “be based upon information
reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal”. See, also, Spokane
County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013).
The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a
prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to
evaluate the impacts of a proposal.
4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is
that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing,
but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice.
Mr. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and
makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23
The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-
Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that “[c]omment
periods for the project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period.” The
second page of the Notice provides that “Comments on the above application must be submitted in
writing….by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014….If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date
indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments…”
Mr. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment
period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the
hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this
regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to “comments on the
above application”, not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that “[t]here will
be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-
Mitigated (DNS-M).” At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on
commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires.
The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a
new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen does not have
standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for
standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to
issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity
to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public
hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the
MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex.
1.
5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulsen
asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately
assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere
with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was
adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse
environmental impacts.
On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA
responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon
information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been
applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case,
supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with
site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The
environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24
legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site
and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination.
In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic
impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing
impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections,
even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS
analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City’s
engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues
that were assessed by City engineering staff.
All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a “prima facie”
showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal.
It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal
will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall
due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a “prima
facie” showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to
establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only
that information considered was “reasonably sufficient” to evaluate environmental impacts. Of
course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it
could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to
that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the
MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen
presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the
SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit
further environmental review.
On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse
environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse
impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the
determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an
engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by
signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection will not interfere with the access
points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable
standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by
reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this
decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly
access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is
adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public
facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B).
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Finding I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public
road.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
10. The City’s adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would
be to an extension of SE 8th Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the
criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26
11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated
trail.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27
12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not
contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of
streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of
Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the
only road connection possible for the project.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
15. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. .
RMC 4-7-150(E):
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 28
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is
not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal
roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road
is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
19. As proposed.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a
depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement
quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4
zone, which includes area, width and density.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
25. As conditioned.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.
There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted
above.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
26. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City
drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City’s stormwater standards, which
are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil
plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 31
29. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
30. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
31. As conditioned.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is
consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal.
2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 32
4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are
available, or provided with the subdivision development.
5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed,
including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such
installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material.
Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
Department of Public Works.
6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by
Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land
owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit
ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall
provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to
the City that it is properly installed.
7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat
approval.
8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156th Ave crossing for school children is
safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as
necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus.
9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7-
150(G) if this is not already proposed.
10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014.
11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of
the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording.
12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual
barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A).
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 33
13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to
recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of
Occupancy for the new single family residences.
14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the
trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement
should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however
staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the
stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the
Final Plat.
15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application
identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist.
16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review
and approval by the City’s Plan Reviewer.
17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat
map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the
final plat.
18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech
engineer, and lining may also be required.
19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the
wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow
for export of native soil and import of structural fill.
20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner’s association of maintenance
agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities
for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be
submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City
Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 34
21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal.
DATED this 13th day of August, 2014.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to
the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s
decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this
14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new
fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the
reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from
the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.