Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-149 • • • • o !� • • PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT • Proposed Heritage Arnold Project • Beacon Way Southeast Renton, Washington GEOTECH September 9, 1999 CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 NE 20th Street,Suite 16 JN 9930A Bellevue,WA 98005 (425)747-5618 FAX(425)747-8561 Bennett Corporation 9 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 204 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Ryan Fike Subject: Transmittal Letter Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Heritage Arnold Project Beacon Way Southeast • ' • Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Fike: Geotech Consultants, Inc. is pleased to present the results of our recently completed Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the subject property. Our work was completed in accordance • , with our proposal dated August 18, 1999. Please find the assessment attached. • We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to Bennett Corporation on this project. if you have . A i any questions, or if we may be of additional service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. CW v 1I BCf;4 David Bair Environmental Engineer DB: alt ,L } PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT. Proposed Heritage Arnold Project ' Beacon Way Southeast Renton, Washington Submitted by: - GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. . . . C&CM40(13CUA . David Bair . Environmental Engineer FI 4g .ovwAsx �� 4 • 4), loo q4, 19660��9 �40 ssIONAL S�G� t /j D f q LEXPIRES 8/17/0 j i.. James R. Finley, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS.INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. 2.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.1 Special Terms and Conditions 2.2 Purpose and Scope of Work 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND RECONNAISSANCE 2 3.1 Location and Legal Description • 3.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics 3.3 Hazardous Materials • 3.4 Other Conditions of Concern 4.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION 6 4.1 Previous Environmental and Geotechnical Investigations 4.2 Historical Maps 4.3 Tax Assessor Records 4.4 State Archive Records 4.5 Renton Directories • 4.6 Aerial Photographs • 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING • 8 5.1 Regional Physiographic Conditions 5.2 Soil and Geologic Conditions 5.3 Hydrogeologic Conditions 6.0 ;RECORDS REVIEW • 8 6.1 Federal Records Sources 6.2 State Records Sources • 6.3 Local Agency Sources 6.4 Assumptions and Opinion of Contaminant Mobility and Site Vulnerability 7.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 10 7.1 Findings • 7.2 Conclusions and Recommendations • 7.3 Limitations 8.0 REFERENCES 11 ATTACHMENTS . Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Plan Plates 3 &4 Site Photographs Appendix VIS's Site Assessment CFOTF(RH C(]NSI II TANTS INC � I PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Proposed Heritage Arnold Project Beacon Way Southeast Renton, Washington 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presently, the site is undeveloped and covered with trees, brambles, and other native vegetation. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. Land use in the surrounding area is characterized by single-family residences. Two 'funnels from abandoned coal mines underlie the site. Historical research revealed that the northern portion of the site was excavated, then filled with imported material that included construction debris. This assessment did not reveal any recognized environmental conditions in connection with the _ subject property. A discussion of the scope of our work, our.site observations, and our conclusions are contained in this report. 2.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the Heritage Arnold property at Beacon Way Southeast in Renton, Washington. 2.1 Special Terms and Conditions • The scope of work for our review of this site did not include the examination, sampling, or analysis of subsurface soil or groundwater on the site for potential environmental contaminants. If new information is developed in future site work, which may include excavations, borings, or studies, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be given the opportunity to review the findings, re-evaluate the conclusions of this report, and provide amendments as required. 2.2 Purpose and Scope Of Work The purpose of an environmental assessment is to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner defense in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): that is, to make "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice." Our scope of work and the limitations of our study are consistent with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation .E 1527: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process. The objective of a Phase 1 assessment is to minimize potential future liability for environmental problems by demonstrating that at the time this report was prepared, the owner, holder, or buyer had no knowledge or reason to know that any hazardous substance had been released or disposed on, in, at, or near the property. An additional objective of the Phase 1 assessment is to identify potential contamination sources. The goal of the processes established by the ASTM is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term "recognized environmental conditions" means the presence, orlikely GEOTECH CONSULTANTS.INC. Bennett Corporation JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 2 presence, of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release,.or the material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of the appropriate governmental agencies. Our study included: • A review of the chronology of ownership and site history, using county assessor records, .archival property record cards, recent and historical maps, and aerial photography as primary resources. An attempt was made to identify possible:former industries or uses presenting some probability of generating waste, which'may have included dangerous or hazardous substances, as defined by state and federal laws and regulations. • A reconnaissance of the property to look for evidence of potential contamination in the, form of soil stains, odors, vegetation stress, discarded drums, or discolored water. . • The acquisition and review of available reports and other documentation pertaining to the subject property or nearby sites. • A review of a search by Vista Information Services, Inc. (VIS) of available state and • federal government records. VIS reported;those sites and businesses that are located within the minimum search distances specified by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527. Additionally, through observations made during our site reconnaissance, we attempted to identify local topographic conditions that may influence the potential for regulated facilities to adversely impact the subject property. • 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND RECONNAISSANCE • 3.1 Location and Legal Description • The subject property is an approximately triangular-shaped parcel of land that covers 10.36 acres. It is located on a plateau approximately one-half mile southeast of downtown Renton. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The property is situated in the northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington. The tax identification .number, as recorded by the King County Assessor's Office, is 202305-9110. 3.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics An environmental engineer from our firm visited the site on September 1, 1999 to observe on-site conditions and land use practices in the surrounding area. Land use in the immediate vicinity is characterized by single-family dwellings and a park. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Bennett Corporation JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 3 3.2.1 Site Improvements The entire 10.36-acre lot is undeveloped. Potable water is provided by the City of Renton. Storm and sanitary sewer services are provided by the King County Department of Metropolitan Services (METRO). 3.2.2 Building Materials No structures are currently on the property. 3.2.3 Current Uses of Property The subject property is the proposed location for a high-density residential development. At present, the site is undeveloped. The southern portion of the property is-covered by trees, brush, and other native vegetation. An unpaved road, now heavily overgrown, leads onto the property from the southeastern border. The northern portion of the property appears to have been excavated (see Section 4.4), then filled. This area contains some trees and is heavily overgrown by brambles. We observed construction _ debris (wood, plastic piping, pieces of concrete and asphalt, etc.) along with tires, bottles, furniture; yard waste, and other household items. The majority of the casual dumping appears to have taken place on the northern portion of the property. None of- the material appears to be hazardous. At the time of our site visit, no major stains, odors, or unusual vegetative conditions that might indicate the potential presence of hazardous contamination were noted on the subject property. 3.2.4 CurrentUses of Adjoining Properties Land use in the site vicinity is characterized by residential development. More specifically, the property is bordered as follows: North: To the north of the subject site is the River Ridge subdivision of single- family houses constructed in 1994. East: To the east of the subject site is the Falcon Ridge subdivision of single- family houses constructed in 1989 and a parcel of undeveloped land that slopes steeply down to the northeast. South-: A gated, asphalt-paved maintenance road (Southeast Beacon Way) over- West lying the City of Seattle's Cedar River water supply pipeline runs along the southwestern border of the property. Across this road is Philip Arnold Park, then single-family residences. During our reconnaissance, we did not observe any obvious signs of improper storage or disposal practices of hazardous waste on any.of the neighboring sites that would negatively impact the subject property. . (:Fr1TP ('W rfUJSI II TANTS INr. Bennett Corporation • . JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 4 3.3 Hazardous Materials 3.3.1 Storage Tanks and Containers At the time of our site visit, wp looked for evidence of underground or above-ground storage tanks on the subject parcel. No signs of underground or above-ground storage tanks were observed during our site reconnaissance. 3.3.2 Asbestos-Containing Materials Asbestos gained widespread use in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s for fireproofing, for thermal insulation, and to enhance strength, and has been used in over 3,000 commercial products. In buildings, it is most conimonly found in •boiler and pipe insulation, in "popcom" ceiling texture, in vinyl flooring, in plaster and drywall compounds, in mastics and adhesives, in cement board siding, and in roofing. The knowledge that exposure to asbestos fibers can cause harm to humans became widespread between about 1955 and 1975. Diseases linked to asbestos exposure include asbestosis, a scarring of the lung tissue; lung cancer; and mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest and abdominal cavity. ' The EPA banned the use of asbestos in some applications in 1973, and by 1989 had'announced a gradual ban on most remaining uses. Building materials imported from-Canada or other areas outside the United States may still contain asbestos. No structures are on the site. We did not observe signs of asbestos-containing materials on the property. 3.3.3 Lead-Based Paint Until the 1960's, paint containing 30 to 40 percent lead was commonly used on the interior and exterior surfaces of buildings. Exposure to particles of lead-based paint (LBP), either through inhalation or ingestion, has been found to cause a variety of adverse human health effects. Children are particularly sensitive to these effects, and chronic exposure to lead can cause learning difficulties, mental retardation, and delayed neurological and physical development. In 1977, the Consumer Products Safety Commission banned consumer use of paint products that contain lead in excess of 0.06 percent. The current LBP standard, as defined by the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and the Department of Housing and Community Development Act, Title 10, is any paint or other surface coating that contains lead in`excess`of 1.0 milligrams per centimeter squared or 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million). No structures are on the subject property. We did not observe any signs of lead-based paint on the site. 3.3.4 PCBs Prior to 1979, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were widely used in electrical equipment, such as transformers, capacitors, switches, fluorescent light ballasts, and voltage regulators, owing to their excellent cooling properties. In 1976, the EPA initiated GFfTFCH CANS11I TANTS INC Bennett Corporation JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 5 the regulation of PCBs through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These regulations generally control the use, manufacture, storage, documentation, and disposal of PCBs. The EPA eventually banned PCB use in 1978, and the adoption of amendments to TSCA under Public Law 94-469 in 1979 prohibited any further manufacturing of PCBs in the United States. No buildings are on the property. We did not observe any transformers on the subject property. 3.3.5 Waste Generation and Disposal No solid or hazardous waste is generated at the subject property_ 3.4 Other Conditions of Concern 3.4.1 Radon Radon is a naturally occurring, highly mobile, chemically inert, radioactive. gas created • through the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. The potential for the occurrence'' of radon varies widely and depends on: (1) the concentration of radioactive materials in the underlying bedrock, (2) the relative_ permeability of soils with respect to gases, and (3) the amount of fracturing or faulting in the surficial materials (EPA, 1987). The EPA has established a concentration for radon of 4 pico-Curies per liter (pC/I) of air as a maximum permissible concentration "action level." According to some studies, the average concentration in homes across the United States is on the order of 1.4 pC/I. Typically, the Puget Sound area of Washington is underlain by a consolidated thickness of glacial drift and rocks that do not contain radon-forming minerals. The Washington Department of Health, Division of Radiation Protection, published a study listing the King ' County average as 0.7 pC/I. Based on this information, it is our opinion that the potential for elevated levels of radon at this site is low. 3.4.2 Coal Mine Hazards Coal has been mined in several areas of King County since the late nineteenth century. Although current production is entirely from surface mines;-nearly all the coal produced prior to about 1970 was from underground workings. Abandoned subsurface mine workings leave large underground voids which are hazardous in several ways. Gradual failure of the roof and sides of these voids may result in subsidence of the ground surface over a large area overlying the mines. Noxious gases and "dead air" (lacking oxygen) may also collect in these voids. In addition, animals or people may fall into surface openings, shafts, or tunnels. Unstable mine spoil piles, frequently covered with vegetation and resembling natural hills, pose hazards as well. We reviewed a mine hazard assessment of the property prepared by HartCrowser, Inc. The report stated that the Heritage Arnold property is underlain by three coal seams, two of which have historic mine workings. The shallowest of the workings lies approximately GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Bennett Corporation • JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 6 250 to 300 feet beneath the surface, while the deeper workings lie 475 to 765 feet beneath the surface. There was no indication of mining on, or adjacent to, the property after the early 1920s. The HartCrowser report identified three potential mine-related hazards: trough-type settlements, sinkholes, and mine gas emissions. They concluded that sinkholes and mine gas emissions were unlikely to be problems at the property and that, although trough-type subsidence could occur, the magnitude of settlement would be unlikely to cause damage to conventionally-constructed structures. 4.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION • Sources reviewed fort information on site and area development and land use included historic aerial photography and the resources of the King County Assessor's Office and the Puget Sound branch of the Washington State Archives. 4.1 Previous Environmental and Geotechnical Investigations Geotech Consultants, Inc. has not completed geotechnical or environmental engineering studies for " the site. We were provided with a copy of an abandoned mine.assessmentfor the site prepared by HartCrowser, Inc. that is summarized in section 3.4.2. 4.2 Historical Maps • Sanborn Fire Insurance maps do not cover the vicinity of the subject property. A U.S. Geological Survey map of the Renton Quadrangle, dated 1949, shows the subject site as a •- mine in an area that is otherwise undeveloped. Revisions made to the map in 1968 and 1973 show areas of residential development to the west and to the southeast. • 4.3 Tax Assessor Records The King County Assessor's Office lists the current taxpayer as the Renton School.District 403. According to information from the Assessor's Office, the residential subdivision to the north, River Ridge, was developed in 1994 while the subdivision to the south, Falcon Ridge (or Cedar Ridge) was developed in 1989. • 4.4 State Archive Records • Information on file at the archives indicates that the subject property was once part of a 32.03-acre site owned by the Puget Sound Power and Light Company. A wooden water tank, located on the present site of Philip Arnold Park, was the structure shown on the property. This large parcel was divided in 1964, and the subject site in its present size and shape was created through a second division in 1966. It was acquired at that time by the Renton School District from Puget Properties. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS_ INC_ Bennett Corporation JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 7 4.5 Renton Directories Renton city directories did not cover the area of the subject property. . 4.6 Aerial Photographs We reviewed aerial photographs dated 1936, 1946, 1960, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995. Development on the subject property and in the surrounding area for each of these years is discussed in the paragraphs that follow. 1936: In this photograph, the subject property is covered by low vegetation. An unpaved road, the City of Seattle's Cedar River Pipeline Road, runs northwest-to southeast along the southwestern border of the property. To the north is a smaller, unnamed road that winds to the southeast before splitting into small trails. Farther north is Maple Valley. A residential area covering a few blocks lies to the west. The land d to the south and the east is undeveloped and covered by low vegetation. 1946: The subject site remains undeveloped and covered by low vegetation. Residential development to the west is denser. A power line right-of-way running east to west has been cleared approximately one-quarter mile to the south. 1960: A small cleared area can be seen at the southeastern corner of the property. A baseball field appears to the west. Several housing developments can be seen to the south. . 1968: The northern portion of the property has been cleared of vegetation, and appears to have been excavated. An electrical substation has been constructed approximately one-quarter mile to the south. 1974: The subject site appears unchanged from the 1968 photograph. At Philip Arnold Park to the west, a building and a parking lot have been constructed. 1980: The northern portion of the property is now covered by low vegetation. The vegetation on the remaining portion is much denser. 1985: Residential development in the area has increased greatly. 1990: The Falcon Ridge housing development now appears to the southeast of the subject site. 1995: The River Ridge housing development now appears to the north of the subject site. The site and the surrounding area appear as described in our 1999 site visit. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS.INC. Bennett Corporation _ • JN 9930A ,September 9, 1999 Page 8 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5.1 Regional Physiographic Conditions The site is located on the Covington Drift Upland, a gently rolling, elevated drift plain in the Puget Sound Lowland geomorphic province. The Puget Sound Lowland is a basin lying between .the Cascade Mountains to the east and the Olympic Mountains to the west and is covered mainly by glacially-deposited sediments. The plain was formed during the last period of continental glaciation that ended approximately 13,500 years ago. The site lies near the northwestern corner of the upland plain at an approximate elevation of 400 feet above sea level. 5.2 Soil and Geologic Conditions A published geologic map for the site vicinity suggests that much of the material underlying the subject site is glacial till, a dense, heterogeneous mixture of silt, sand, and gravel. Typically, the till exhibits relatively low vertical hydraulic conductivity, which frequently results in formation of a perched water table along its upper contact. The perched water table (if present) is frequently seasonal and derives recharge primarily from infiltration of precipitation through more permeable overlying soils.. Geotech Consultants, Inc. is preparing a geotechnical engineering study of the site that will discuss subsurface conditions in greater detail. 5.3 Hydrogeologic Conditions The geologic unit that we assume characterizes the site is of relatively low permeability, although unmapped deposits of higher permeability sand and gravel may occur within this unit. Based upon local drainage patterns and upon our review of a U.S. Geological Survey map of the area, it is likely that the flow of surface, or shallow-seated subsurface, water across the property would be toward the northwest to the Cedar River. According to a U.S.,EPA Ground Water Handbook, shallow water tables typically conform to surface topography. 6.0 RECORDS REVIEW Geotech Consultants, Inc. utilized the services of Vista Information Services, Inc. (VIS) to complete a search of available state and federal government records. VIS reported those sites and businesses that are located within the minimum search distances specified by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527. Additionally, through observations made during our site reconnaissance, we attempted to identify local topographic conditions that may influence the potential for regulated facilities to adversely impact the subject 'property. The databases searched by VIS, as well as the search areas applied to each, are summarized in the following sections. A copy of the VIS Site Assessment is included with this report as an appendix. n CATCr`IJ r`AAICI II TAAITC IAV` Bennett Corporation JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 9 6.1 Federal Records Sources 6.1.1 NPL One site within a one-mile radius of the subject property is found on the National Priority List. That site, Pacific Car and Foundry at 1400 North 4th Street, is located approximately one mile to the north. Based upon its distance from the Heritage Arnold property and its crossgradient hydrologic position, any risk it may pose appears to be very low. 6.1.2 CERCLIS A review of the EPA's CERCLIS listing reveals no active sites within approximately one- half mile of the subject property that have been designated as potentially hazardous or: eligible for participation in the Superfund cleanup program. . . 6.1.3 ERNS The subject property does not appear on the Emergency-Response Notification System (ERNS) database of spill response activities. 6.1.4 FINDS A review of the Facility Index System (FINDS) listing and the EPA's RCRA Notifiers list, along with our site and area reconnaissance, reveals no RCRA-regulated businesses on the subject property, on adjacent sites, or within a one-eighth mile radius. 6.1.5 TSD A review of the RCRI$-TSD list shows no sites within a one-mile radius of the subject property. 6.2 State Records Sources • 6.2.1 WDOE Underground Storage Tanks A review of the WDOE listing of underground storage tanks (USTs) reveals no registered USTs on, or adjacent to, the subject property. 6.2.2 WDOE Leaking Underground Storage Tanks A review of the current Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list reveals no sites within a half-mile radius of the subject property that have reported releases of petroleum into the environment. 6.2.3 WDOE Hazardous Site Listings A review of the WDOE Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites (C&SCS) report GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. • Bennett Corporation JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 10 shows one site within an approximate one-mile radius of the subject property that has been designated as a confirmed hazardous substance site. This site, Northwest Pipeline at 800 South 21st Street, is situated approximately seven-eighths of a mile to. the southwest, in a crossgradient hydrologic position. Based upon the distance separating it from the Heritage Arnold property and upon its relative hydrologic position, it is not considered a source of potential contamination to the subject property. 6.2.4 WDOE Toxics Site Listings A review of the WDOE Toxics site listing shows two sites within a one-half-mile radius of the subject property that have submitted reports to WDOE describing independent • cleanup activities. Both sites are approximately one-half mile from the subject site, and are in cross- to downgradient hydrologic positions. Based upon the distances separating them from the Heritage Arnold property and upon their relative hydrologic positions, they are not considered sources of potential contamination to the subject property. . 6.3 Local Agency Sources A statewide listing of municipal solid waste facilities does not record any active landfills in this area. A review of the Seattle-King County Health Department records pertaining to current and abandoned landfills within the county suggests that two closed landfills are located within one mile of the subject property. The Mount Olivet Landfill is located three-quarters of a mile to the north- northeast, and the Renton Highlands Landfill is located approximately one mile to the northeast. Both landfills are located across Maple Valley from the subject site. Based upon the distances separating them from the Heritage Arnold property and the intervening valley, they are not considered sources of potential contamination to the subject property. 6.4 Assumptions and Opinion of Contaminant Mobility and Site Vulnerability No sites confirmed to be contaminated by hazardous waste lie within 1,000 feet of the subject property in an upgradient hydraulic position. As such, it is our professional opinion that the potential for the migration of theoretical water-borne contamination onto the subject property is very low. 7.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION We performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, consistent with the scope and limitations of ASTM Designation E 1527, for the property at Beacon Way Southeast in Renton, Washington. 7.1 Findings This assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. C,FOTFCN CTIKIRI II TAWTS IIJC Bennett Corporation JN 9930A September 9, 1999 Page 11 7.2 Conclusions and Recommendations As stated earlier, the northern portion of the property was excavated, then filled with as much as 12 feet of imported material that included construction debris. It may be prudent to include a contingency in development plans, should contaminated material be discovered during future excavation. 7.3 Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Bennett Corporation, apd its representatives, for specific application to this site. This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work is. in accordance with our Fee Schedule and General Conditions and our signed proposal,which is dated August 18, 1999. 8.0 REFERENCES Bishop, Greg, Tumberg, Wayne L., and VanDusen, Karen. Abandoned Landfill Study in King County. Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Seattle,Washington. April 1985. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic Map of the Renton, Washington Quadrangle. 1983. Division of Radiation Protection, Department of Health, State of Washington. Radiation Fact Sheet. HartCrowser, Inc. Abandoned Mine Assessment, Heritage Arnold Property, Renton, Washington. August 16, 1999. , King County, Environmental Division. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. December 1990. Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA Ground Water Handbook- Volume 1: Ground Water and Contamination. EPA/625/6-90/016a. September 1990. Waldron, Howard H., Liesch, Bruce A., Mullineaux, Donal R., and Crandell, Dwight R. Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. 1962. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. A . . • --- iR ' 1 1 • • gi' lilit , U, il eeitdic ...: ' :. .1.1iii --iliiiikik'\\*. /I; 15 (.T./. :41:1\W''‘,1-3°6' I ...11:11/11 Grelenwo-od berrhi ;11 1: - . +IL ' \', / b- - - vinirsq. •• )= ; '. .(*_..,.‘ii • - . 300„-c• Al . r ' .::::\ ‘,. it) i 7,11ji.../ • -....• . .. . , :P 111111 1 iii—ie- • ...(6k '-„.:—., 1- / i., . ..., • ----- 1.11, $ (.).•;i:-----mo-- Xei•••-• \ I ,\ ••.OF ,;•• r, -, .' 1 • BM I „ 111poni .. ) *AI 7. / -• i ''''' -- -- •'' 'Al7 ..:i . .) ,,,..CemI2 : / '''.." "•., '' 4:asebli ,', ..1 pp t4..Pa.rk/ • \ ,,.. - . •• '.. . RA L, I PIT .: :, II\••, . --' 7-tritti ' al IT \,,- / \-.•:, --( em „ , . , ‘ li ii 4 ,... .__:i-k..._-_____...".• ,es,'1,if • ' 321, - —__— _ • ,.2v-,— ,1 II ...t, .1 . -------,4y < ,•44 NJ- ,, si •.".. •_ ..,. , , ' •IdiP•.--- 1)/ti „IX oi NINE1,,g gip --._ ,• --_--„.. . -.. . -,,,,, .ik ./ -' -.,--..-•. ..--,,,,,,, „.. , .,; •• ,......,. ,, - •••• .. :.,..,i .„, .:- _-„ - ---.:-..-_----------....\ ,..-_,-„, (.11..‘..,1_, •-.L__ _ .2‘,..,-, !•,.. it P.0, ' 1 IlLg . Mil,2";/491p1 • N '17,Evi ---__-___ .‘k ...-C.--:-:,.' 1 :.• .,.-,.;'-;---:=•', .:::C:-.42:q • ‘'',..;$-Zy - •,..ip; ' ih, ' , d . ,P:47 lig°I pl VI: .%\ 44,,,,,1::., '`••4?-1.41."••IA. isv.,it4 -•-',%'42-0,..)--:..--' , k._‘-„:-• , tIct-,.', '. ' "'.•s g . . ..--.,g,,B ito 1 I \ -\--*•-•••.-.. •,,, •%id, ' ' '..r..);,--- '- . -i..W..-;.:-;;;:-.•-•'---,--'4''---,. • ‘• 7-c . .'l.N.4•••"1.. fr' y'''''1111,11' • . I ill',A ' --,‘'"' 'ct, Hi..1 • '.. --!_:-. -.1:_c=,....;•47."1-i."411114:•:. V":"•:-"':`::: 10. •, lb Ih sA. ,t,-,.._.. ,-.--dg."11 ir r(71.\ /,2 .: '• ---i.. -----.-_1•4 2-- %.•'''-'''' ".••...°'44.. ,',..;! •,i.:',.'`I-'9-- - ':':"--' . J .. - - •iii iiir. f . if\e‘ . ‘..\1/4...;-_;_.:4. ;•Lq. ..-,-.,,-...,-...., __.,..., ....:._.,... ..7/: ..4..../,..i. .,:„...,..i....1,..,....,..,... . ----(\;., 5 ''. ' /1 ii , I lii t------7-------- --4110 :-,-,: '-'---. ‘4 7--"--.2. :.1.ST.IY-*:".• \ 1, .1 . '!`t., ••••''.:•.:1 .... 11-- • •'•• 1. - - • jii I TOP .4r\- ---r•-•'-'..- - \:---N,..._, (, )1‘ \_,./ 1.••• .•^@., •,-•,---t:•••• , . •--,,:.5---Th `, --1- II NE IIII lia /11 7 il ' j % lt---\' !..„. ,.i. ' .z1/-i"\'! .\...,.41,_ ..;,,z......:.: 1 6 tos_-" I .','. 1 1,111B1/4_a__". t V.1,.,/—_,,_."..k.,...... S‘` __ _:-..,--.--,_\,•,,, . , . -. ..j_ k-...\-. •'-,.:*>::-.....,..**** - \1 (\ \- 1--\,) q?•-?/\ I 1,!•••:•11 --t.t:711'.;;;/ A AIM !., IA. ;:::_.,.,----::--;:-.- .,1__ -,:,-,.--__\- .„------_ . ---, is\..)-:,.,...;:i ,__ :,,___------- ,, 1 • ..___.,, 1 7 ,i‘ „ . k,. 30/_, A:..1.1k;f:-Te.\_,.:::::. I ,...._ ‹;.,-,--' , .,. "-.-c.? •-'-'1/4•• "x• .0- :/-A-`)/ \ ;c;,%..'% . V • '• • (.,_ lir s\I. ,, 1 -4.-_-_•.-_-: .... ..,..1 \ ..,-",oc. ••1.„,,..\, - - % ,0•••••••• , V:.,.....i. \..1 ft i ...;e:.:... '''''Skt.".• • 1,.._\,i , K‘ As.A..., • • •• y ,--,- - s, V., , ,•*4 •:---Jr -*\--- i': )s..-- -,-;.-=;i------ i---A\ '- • "-N-1 A s•::,,-).„...., ,-0-:-..., 1 . ,.. ..J1 -. tr-=•-\'‘ _.. _1,..-„. .. 1041\ / •". .s.:_2....„, Orp, .\...t\r\r____ -g 10•• \t\k_ ,-. - c: 11 ,.k s:•--.- .i .0.1 ,ill , ,..-40k00.-- • , , • „ - I --___...., cr Nikt-- -- (/-''''-•.1 .t. I ii____/ :--v-Nif-p-Ir..... ..iiiiIII7 ., letilli .,41 ._.? • 1 ,I. l7W-I04 ly ,, \ 11 ( "--' I .11 i lir ti"il-`1!1■2!= --.., , / . 1: filkh II 1 • mgmilt2Mii0FINI---ANAlkyi 2M,, •__ *,- , Vit-/A ill0 1 2-.1•NVI ' le lir: r 01). -(Vill -:••:••••7.•*11 • I I I-• :ervoir ' . \itki OR..1 . i•'Il •$•\--- ,,,,, 1 1 , :. I j h_ 1 .1 I . I iik A• . . p I, • \ . ' '. .., _41,4 a •,•. ,,.. . 1 ' - 1/15....;-,.____.._ . . ... ,..1 i L.• ---1-' •.•,-1 91 I ., • -• le- • ii • \ 1--. ,_.• --' linglill k - tei74 ----- .* • .vg,g, -WI— '.- - , _•,...\. )1 - , - • 1. 1 \VV.' 1 _ N Scale 0 1/2 1 mile — 1.—... •-' '--., ,••., ;.,• -f 3. Inferred Direction of Shallow Groundwater Flow L (Spume:U.S.Geologic Survey map of Renton,VitshIngton Quadrangle,1973) r . VICINITY MAP Proposed Heritage Arnold Project GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC Beacon Way Southeast •. Renton,Washington Job No: Datc Mt& 7 99330A Sept 1999 . . 1 , •i N River Ridge residential development , i ‘• brambles ""------------ trees and i gate"• ..., brush • steep,wooded slope i . I \ I • approximate area \ i \ • • • of excavation \ i i „i----- --- -7;413 \ I i ...4......_____...) 1st \ parking et\ ? lot 4, • -t i -o \ -4' br4mbles t •N. trees and i Philip OA. ‘ i • " • brush . Falcon Arnold 00 %. r, • a I ' Ridge Prk 0 • c • ! . residential . I development o •_ I elsiz\ • • • I j "1. baseball fields 6),,A*16 ..„,..0, ) undeveloped land SITE PLAN ...IT CONSULTANTS,*1101 Proposed Heritage Arnold Project Beacon Way Southeast Renton,Washington Job Na Dater Plato: 99330A Sept.1999 No Scale 2 i • • • • r •t-. -. , `+.. • a.•...•.•Z - r • 7 T: �i • i- - • ••-T by .:... fit''114.3.."• T•t�`_Kt . S..-Y•n,�.. • ._ . .•ems. • • Looking south at northwestern comer of property. MR f r - .•- ' �t. y 1 rt ,}, c }' a r • • :"'• Yt rt � ,s . - 4 •fr ar fi`' -:i -,-; r ""+i� t's.' jr • -"--z•- . •.`€' 'AY *x, , 41 .w • • • • .- !tea... : w}- t+t -' y:... . • .-h.;:.' _ - ��?rk ' ig''t -' t+w • Looking north at southwestern side of property , 1 ' • SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECH 1'CH Proposed Heritage Arnold Project, `°- CONSULTANTS,INC. Beacon Way Southeast Renton,Washington slob No: AIM: Plate:99330A Seg.1999 3 • i.• I. • • -'.'..^ ‘- ..' • ',oir-....7••'.11."s, ' '' , . --.:,' ` %••• %'.,'47,../441°''ef' -•-•.•..14,_i ‘'':Y •'I, •' *.•••:::. ^".,6;'... . ' '! : - - /45' - 'v. ''re F-'1, L'r-. - -:-.4' .• - , , ‘: , - ... ' {.1,Z " -,•',,- I N•=ee,* , , .• - -- .- _ .. ' , .: _-:,-... • • ', l'.p ;-.;"•', e-..., , ft ,.... i ... A li`• c-. ' . • z S i \ .-I ' • ' ' e Looking over northern portion of property. 111 -. ,•• : ..i.,. 1 I L„...., • t ti, '4„. ;•."*„• ' ',..., . ... ' . t:(11,1" , • 4.441.%,#/r. .'74:, ' A.,•'-‘ '0' ‘• '41.•-` :tOr gal.. t i • 1 1 ' Ap • %; 4 ' '..1.* • '. :I. ' 1 •__ •VIPEA• at—• r.:. . _..r. •W 4i., -.A„.1...t ',Ir. , ., . 2*W...a-,•,. ,t,. ,• • We.c. **,-- • .• **1 ro •.. ....„1, ,..,-. :•,.,•-• .1. •;4. . Z.... 1 :....t'' 't' 'i ere ''. . \'. .41.N.e• -' '. • •••• 1.---• "`,' .• ..- :I '''. Ie.!! •ii t 4440.., A 1b' "e..* ' ••••,• '•, ,-• ,.vs' ' - 4, '.., . . . • • '''• .? t s -I ."N•‘t s ' •`. •`. .... ••' r." ..... '••• .,, '-• ..... i..,..••C:":5i k. .?' . -•••••1., •t• eg'• - .3" •..--"•,;...,‹44 ......- • • .•:',4 -... ,t.„;.:,. i.kr.tri• ti. -, . -. . ..,,...„,..,„,. ,.., ,....,,,, „,„,,.. ,. ... ...., .,..6:.,:- .(103 •1/• 71;`,...,,...7r.•.tr7,..., ......."%c111..7...„.•• •74."..-#..i4 If:, 11,, ..Ts.„ 1.6.f., 1. . li.1: -:....., .' * t ; . -',J, :--•,. -,-;,.4\4‘ N‘,...,11 ,--0 •i - -',••ik 7,4 4',.,`N 74: P.....Z' . - ‘• .--- ----.-4 -..-... -4.t., ...s.`. -I's -1 z.7e= ,.." ---- .... -?.. . ' ,,=.-: t ... ' • 4_ .4,.-nr. .„At'- ,,!".r4,, „"":, ,.•..4%10. vi.' 7.-" -s -, "*.r.: -- •'--r --..- - 1 k..4 ; --7:-*-1-1.-r7:.," -•'• .-%:, L-• -- t'I Z.,--5.!:„.,...N.-- -'.:.=,,,"; -- .7,%•-• 1 i .--. - - - i: .• .-;=-'-- . ----.% ' ' ..--.1`• - 1••------:z .- --.-.:tki_•i.-: ' - • • ' •-•,:•• J• :-.• - --:,•.:- - , ••- - - ,-- - • - -..• ,_ . -.,,..:_t...• ._ , .-• - -) ;,-;.••• • i t \ _ - .• t . , . .__-1:•/".,- - - • - - ' • Pe 3 - .. - •''.."'• , , • . 6 -..4 , .--: . , , • - . 4. ....„---- 4, ':•.,;-•,,.: ; • , .„....: , , ---•._........,„ ,.. • _N „ -c „......„6, , I /„., .,,,..:..„ •,-.....-t...4, ....-- • ,- „.--- ,,,,, .. . 4,-. .•-•,v,„., .• , , - „,„ , -... • „ „',„--.„;** / ,P0',.. ,.r # k" .%* •1.*/...--, . t • . 'W.." ,C. . ' AS l4 1 _. •• .# '-'77 .•\-( . 'a, •. ''•''' s. C. i It 1±•..0 f te -.. -7:-. -----,.--r• .•:s, --, - ;? 7.• ..,r• ",-; , i `;'''‘'' . . - •••• '-- • --.4 - ': ••,-, %• . NIL, -- =1 - •_r .• •-: ...- • •.%• - g 4";,4,.•,..4%t. .-•_..• A' . • •. •,,. -'''-- • ....1 I.- , • ...",,0,-.4 ja;r4),-- • . •"..... 4:4,--. Looking over southern portion of property. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECH -- Proposed Heritage Arnold Project Beacon Way Southeast ..,..*1 CONSULTANTS,INC. Renton,Washington Job No: Dater Plate: 4 98330A Sept 1999 APPENDIX VIS's Site Assessment GEOTFCH CONSIII TANTS INC r - SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT PROPERTY :::.CLIENT.:... INFORMATION :INFORMATION Project Name/Ref#:99330A Ryan Fike Proposed Heritage Arnold Project Bennett Corporation Beacon Way Southeast 9 Lake Bellevue Dr., Suite 204 Renton,WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98005 Latitude/Longitude: (47.473422, 122.192681 ) Site Distlibutioln Summary. :: riie:::::::. :::ia`mi(e:;: .::i1.2:mile::: . ::i:mrle:``: A9.e nd D Y� /:.,.atabas T. P a of Records Y. A) Databases searched to 1 mile: US EPA NPL National Priority List : 0 0 0 1 US EPA CORRACTS .RCRA Corrective Actions and (TSD) associated TSD 0 0 0 0 STATE SPL State equivalent priority list 0 0 0 1 B) Databases searched to 1/2 mile: ' STATE SCL State equivalent CERCLIS list 0 0 0 - US EPA CERCLIS/ Sites currently or formerly under . NFRAP review by US EPA 0 0 0 - US EPA TSD RCRA permitted treatment,storage, disposal facilities 0 0 0 - STATE LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks '0 0 0 - STATE SWLF Permitted as solid waste landfills, incinerators, or transfer stations 0 0 0 - STATE TOXICS Washington Site Register 0 0 2 - C) Databases searched to 1/4 mile: STATE UST Registered underground storage tanks 0 0 - - D) Databases searched to 1/8 mile: US EPA ERNS Emergency Response Notification System of spills 0 - - - US EPA LG GEN RCRA registered large generators of hazardous waste 0 -. - - US EPA SM GEN RCRA registered small generators of hazardous waste 0 - - - For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc.at 1 -800-767-0403. Report ID: 99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 11 • This report meets the ASTM standard E-1527 for standard federal and state government database research in a Phase I environmental site assessment. A (-) indicates a distance not searched because it exceeds these ASTM search parameters. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Customer proceeds at its own risk in choosing to rely on VISTA services,in whole or in part,prior to proceeding with any transaction. VISTA cannot be an insurer of the accuracy of the information,errors occurring in conversion of data,or for customer's use of data. VISTA and its affiliated companies,officers,agents,employees and independent contractors cannot beheld liable for accuracy, storage,delivery,loss or expense suffered by customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by VISTA. NOTES • • • • For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403. Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.6.1 Page 12 . Istigir . { SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT . Map of Sites within 1 Mile 'l •1 •y-fr' - . 1 z N- , Ct a'. N . , N 4th St_ Af a oc ►iujt o, Aillble a 0411.11 \1� p �"I‘ • y.A ��• St Ne 3rd St . : o Pe 2nd St . Ai:4;s, To S 2'd St = %�� �, State Hw •1n X4 � n [ .<e< s 0 6ti- S 1� T7T7 _~ R j t ,.:1 Ai iltirgrA .>) ar: ... 111 o 1,10 : I' D kT• ge - -. ,,, , . , x „ Gfe$ c) is .. 1 / ,.., _ . [p r' r •; iwi.e thi . , _ .. . 1 7p%k tea, ,,,s, , ,ip St -. ‘ < .A : cn ",0coQ 18th S �r 6- \6k P\ cp ' S19t1 ® 3 . In _ Q S 2,4 Pi N o S ' / co. 1 „ --y ,.0 Q - e :: 't Se ri s S 'Ai ' 0., In e °' - 't 0 0.25 0.5 — • , \ 'S 2 t S 261 S\ e 163rd 1.-- -,Mites Category: A B C D Subject Site Databases Searched to: 1 mi. 1/2 mi. 1/4 mi. 1/8 mi. Single Sites A 0 Multiple Sites ® ^`y lJ \/\ Highways and Major Roads NPL,SPL, CERCLIS\ UST ERNS, \/ - Roads CORRACTS NFRAP, GENERATORS (TSD) TSD, LUST, '-'1- - `•', Railroads SWLF, SCL -• Rivers or Water Bodies - Utilities For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403 Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report: September 3,1999 Page#3 • . ' '.I ' ,,,,,,,..,..-- .-=—---,...i i...,..,..._---.0.;,..,,._,0 0 0 f._ 40,, SITE:ASSESSMENT REPORT Sites Represented as Polygons a7 , . - o a, # II 0 z N-may, Ct N 5 N • Q 4t'� i �� St e 2nd St PP141P*13d ? , p � o\ Al. To IA St > • r Fet }-�'lipir - � %n m z . �° l St �. •.• ..• State H •OQ� /" �` 001 ._5--;:o. • L -'V \._,Ier-d4i 41- � _ ` fh , ..,. 41 ' S 6th S ; / I .p ; ... St" . ... . _ .._ ;! 0 • , .* . - ..'• dlid N - ••• z Go c� !� D � \Q`, - , P 0 . / lotts. _ 0 r15t ',I ""'"111%. , • - .-. 1 ' Vi'e , u) -O o7 , a 18th S 19t' L_ — .. , �. Q 17c . S 2 r iq co ., co " 11, '' Se of ....--=• _ • S '.p d St 166- c iilusr it.iIc •f S - e .411111116, - -� •�' 0 0.25 0.5 - rS _ -t \ 2b{ St ge 163rd Miles These boundaries are approximated from agency records or other sources such as published maps. They may represent property boundaries, impact zones,or study areas. For more information contact the agency referenced by source number in the site listing. *--.......---\ Highways and Major Roads �----. Roads Subject Site k',X�-t�, Railroads • Rivers or Water Bodies - - Utilities For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403 Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report: September 3, 19 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Street Map • ' Z N-Ait,, it li J II 4th St A :� , - N �� Ip ��'rf't i� (n 1000._ \' T Alumium xn !Lirigitit • L:°E / \e 2nd St o\ A. To.;VSt > • � o u G \ • a . S2,dSt 2 ° 2-'z /.1. .�o� •. :4 ti4, � St�teH ~ •0°��� � ,t I �� y�6. M:,. ivii, s lip.- ., i' . . ,,;,. ......_...---- --s. k* s ,, _. ..; 4_____,„,..,__. . ,-(-.- .-e,:7 EIE s. AV' ; 1111111[ .. ---:- - V : ,6 Ell * ,.. . 1 li. cod \NG ". -2 L 0 i '. -.-'illk --, CD .. Iia : It 46.."°.4'4. (') 1.111140A , CB cr 18th S �. • , S 19t St I �, c -� L e 57 - c .. < s'—' r S 'A. dSt ,� i e :i 11_,Arip Se n , 0 0.25 0.5 S,2 S 26t St -9 : ',t f—� i t e 163rd Miles --..„...----\ Highways and Major Roads Subject Site � . Roads - ., k-" 7-„, . Railroads Rivers or Water Bodies Utilities For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403 Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report: September 3, 1999 Page#5 , , SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT SITE INVENTORY A B C D . -PROPERTY;AND THE ADJACENT;AREA. G . a . •MAP ' • •. (within:1/8'mile).: to .ID • • . •. z .• ....`.. • H . . to <.:. Z Z. . •-• VISTA ID:: C): :: �- Z. (.9- C• DISTANCE a Oa .-'a. .J. W G. g ., X Z •. . • .. .. ;.DIRECTION Z U' .to 'In C..'. .J tn: F- P :W• J.:N'. No Records Found �=•..`�SITES:IN..THE`SURROUNDING:AREA::�:::>' ti :' Q �' 0'::...(STANCE.: a O. . a .0 W. '� t9 O . .. ... r>::DIRECTION Z N tn. •F-•-+.an:.F- —i :v..: No Records Found B C '' :.: ::;::::::.:;.`::;.:::.:;`::::::::SITE.5�IN:7FIURROUND._NGAREA::::::.:::;..:::-.:::, ::.;: .! o.. :�::. ..... 'MAP `::: ::::::: ' witNin..1/4 1/2:mile H . • •. W::•:W. '. IST :D.'. . . . FF aO: aJ (1W .a O -Es...0 '>>DIRECTIOZ . o n . _ : ::1:-N: M n. STONEWAY CONCRETE RENTON 6808683 1 1915 SE MAPLE VALLEY HWY 0.47 M II X • RENTON,WA 98056 PUGET SOUND POWER LIGHT RENTON - 342043 2 620 S GRADY WAY 0.48 II X • RENTON,WA 98055 C ::SITES IN:THE:.SURROUNDING::AREA.:..::: a:::-•- : MAP: ::. •. :•' (within 1/2-1 mile):..:::: : :' . . • J. . W W; VISTA-ID. CY'': ia. — • :fif •... DISTANCE a O:.a.. .V W y•:=. XO an. ce C7 �; .: DIRECTION 2 0' h .rn. C). E-. N .t- = W .J- tn: NORTHWEST PIPELINE SEATTLE 2883006 . 3 800S21STST 0.8 MI X • RENTON,WA 98055 , • _. X=search criteria; • =tog along (beyond search criteria). • ' For more information_call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 800-767 0403. Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.i Page d6 A. B`: C .. D. SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA • MAP (within 1/2-1 mile) C ID V. Z VISTA ID Lij • DISTANCE a .O a V. W H m g DIRECTION v) w J. N PACIFIC CAR FOUNDRY CO 4864595 4 1400 N 4TH ST 0.99 MI x RENTON,WA 98055 • • • X=search criteria; • =tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc.at 1 -800-767 -0403. Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 • Version 2.6.1 Page#7 Y • UNMAPPED SITES `n g • Ill F- • Z d O a .V W cc o 2 VISTA ID Z V. N :N:'U' J N .� W 'J. N No Records Found • • • • • • • • o. • X=search criteria; • =tog along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc.at 1 -800-767-0403. Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page#'8 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT DETAILS • • PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT:AREA(within 1/8:mile): No Records Found ••.SITES•IN:THE SURROUNDING AREA::Wiithin:`:1/.8': :1/4 mile`.:: •••. : ':::.:: :. :.:::::::•.::::.:: • No Records Found • :`�`�SI �.N:TH ��•��RR UNDING:AREA' wthinl/ 1 2m TESII .......:::...:.•.:...::: {., ::.::.::�:.:::..::::::::=• �.::::::::.:_::,:>::� � - VISTA . :.: ` 'STONEWAYC.QNCRETE.atENTON_:`'`:: Address:...• ®ist anc %Diretiarl. :::. .... ... ::; •9:1:5::SE MAPL�:VAL•E•Y:;HWY` :• -'.`:, ::..:.:.:...:.....:..::.:: :....:>::.:.....>.....:..:.: :. ::.. Plotted.:as:::::�::::::::::.�:.:::::•:..Point:::::::.::�::::::::::•:::::�:::. �: WA Toxics-Washington Toxics/SRC#5911 - . EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: STONEWAY CONCRETE ' 1915 SE MAPLE_VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON,WA 98055 • NORTHWEST N.. Region: ..._, State Detail Description: NO Contact NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE:METALS • Description: WASTE:PETROLEUM PRODUCT Description: WASTE:NON-HALOGENATED SOLVENTS Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:6/27/90 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:FINAL - Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:90-07 VISTAVISTA:.ID#.:;;<?:::....'::::` :34:2043>?`:::=::::>::;:`::':::: :..Mapa�`>:; PUGET,SOUND::POWER: LIGHT:RENTON Address';•.: `:'. :. r•;. ....:..:.....: ".`:":; :;:::;`:> Distance/.Directiiota :Q:48<NIf: :V1L: ''.`<``::>:: :. Plotted:as:>:::::::;` :::.�:�::::Poirf::�':;�:'�::::::<:•�:::.:::::: • : REN10N 'WA`:980.55`:<;' :.:: WA Toxics-Washington Toxics/SRC#5911 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: PUGET SOUND ENERGY 620 S.GRADY WAY • RENTON,WA 98055 Region: NORTHWEST • State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE:POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS Description: WASTE:POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc.at 1 -800-767-0403. Report ID: 99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 19 • SITES IN.THE SURROUNDING AREA(within 1/4-:1:/2 mile):CONT. Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:7/22/98 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: - MEDIA:SEDIMENTS Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:98-06 ,• Description: WASTE:POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS Description: WASTE:POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT::4/30/98 • • Description: MEDIA:GROUNDWATER Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM • Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:98-07 . S TES THE SURR OU�NDIN AREA: ithi .L .. .. . OU. G.A wt n 1.2...1.mile L. .VISTA ;:;:.:... •:'. N.ORTHWEST:::PIPELINE EATRE::..:;::;:.;::::::::':::�:' ::::::.:.:.::.: ....:..::......: :.. :.:....,..• .�...•....... .. . . Address':'::: `0 S Distance/Dire., . SPL-State Equivalent Priority List/SRC#5429 Agency ID: 2392 WARM 3 :) Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE - Status: UNKNOWN . .• Facility Type: NOT AVAILABLE Lead Agency: NOT AVAILABLE • • • ' n State Status: NOT AVAILABLE• Pollutant 1: EPA PRIORITY POLLUTANTS-METALS CYANIDE , Pollutant 2: PEVICIDE . Pollutant 3: UNKNOWN A •VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767 -0403. Report ID: 99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page#10 SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA(within,1/2.-1 mile) CONT. : VISTA PACIFIC CAR :FOUNDRY CO VISTA ID#: 4864595. Map ID Address': :Distance 0:99:MIr .: 1400 N 4TH ST:. Plotted::as : :.Polygon 4 RENTON,WA 98055: NPL-National Priority List/SRC#5900 EPA ID: WAD009249210 Agency Address: PACIFIC CAR FOUNDRY CO. 1400 N 4TH ST RENTON,WA 98055 EPA Region: 0 Congressional District 0 Federal Facility: Agency Code() • Facility Ownership: NOT AVAILABLE Site Incident Category: • unknown Federal Facility Docket: Agency Code() NPL Status: UNKNOWN Incident Type: Unknown Proposed NPL Update#: 0 Final NPL Update#: 0 Financial Management System ID: NOT REPORTED Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 Lat/Long Source: Agency Code() Lat/Long Accuracy: Unknown Dioxin Tier: 4 Unknown USGS Hydro Unit: RCRA Indicator: Unknown Alias Name: • PACCAR Alias Street: NOT REPORTED Alias City: NOT REPORTED Alias Latitude: 0 Alias Zip: NOT REPORTED Alias Longitude: 0 Alias State: NOT REPORTED r. Alias Name: PACIFIC CAR FOUNDRY CO Alias Street: NOT REPORTED Alias City: KING Alias Latitude: 4729200 Alias Zip: NOT REPORTED Alias Longitude: 12211470 Alias State: NOT REPORTED 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403. Report ID: 99330A111 Date of Report September 3, 1999 Verson 2.6.1 Page 011 UNMAPPED SITES • No Records Found • • 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403. Report ID: 99330A111 Date of Report: September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page#12 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT DESCRIPTION OF DATABASES SEARCHED A) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE NPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#:5900 The agency release date for NPL was May, 1999. The National Priorities List(NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned • hazardous waste sites identified for priority remedial actions tinder the Su ierfund program.A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top priority site,or meet three specific criteria set jointly by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the US EPA in order to become an NPL site. SPL . VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property: - " SRC#:5429 The agency release date for Confirmed Contaminated Sites Report Was November, u 1998. :. The Washington Confirmed Contaminated Sites Report contains a-WARM ' - • . . (Washington Ranking Model) BIN Number of 0-5 which is assigned to an NPL site designating it as a State Priority Site. CORRACTS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#:5896 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was May, 1999. • . The EPA maintains this dataL-lase of RCRA facilities which are undergoing "corrective action".A"corrective action order" is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008 (h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from,a RCRA facility. Corrective actions may be required beyond the facility's boundary and can be required regardless of when the release occurred, even if it predates RCRA. `.A ES:SEARCH 1/2 MILE.CERCLIS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#:5790 The agency release date for CERCLIS was March,1999. The CERCLIS List contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List(NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.The information on each site includes a history of all pre-remedial,remedial, removal and community relations activiies or events at the site, financial funding information for the events, and unrestricted enforcement activities. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc.at 1 -800-767 -0403. Report 6.1 99330A111 2.6.Version 1 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Page 113 • NFRAP VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#:5791 The agency release date for CERCLIS-NFRAP was March, 1999. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly, or the contamination was not • serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. SCL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#:5428 The agency release date for Suspected Contaminated Sites Report was November, 1998. The Washington Suspected Contaminated Sites Report is not assigned a WARM (Washington Ranking Model) BIN Number, designating these sites a contaminated site. The Washington Affected Media and Contaminants Report includes sites in the following categories: (1) National Priorities List(NPL) Sites, FederalLead; (2) National Priorities List(NPL) Sites,State Lead; (3) State Sites, Confirmed Hazardous Substances Sites(sites where the presence of hazardous substances has been confirmed by laboratory or field determinations; (4) Potential Hazardous Substance Sites,these sites have been reported to the Department of Ecology and-further investiggtion including sampling is underway; (5) State Sites Under-going Long-Term Monitoring; . ' . , . and (6) Sites For Which Cleanup is Complete.This;report includes some leaking underground storage tank sites. RCRA-TSD VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2�r4�ile of your property. • SRC#:5896 The agency release date.for HWDMS/RCRIS was May, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Program identifies and . tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal.The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report - generation,storage,transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA • TSDs are facilities which treat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste. SWLF VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#:5619 The agency release date for Municipal Solid Waste Facilities was September,1998. This database is provided by the Department of Ecology, Solid Waste Services Program.The agency may be contacted at: 360-407-6133. • • The Washington Solid Waste Inventory does not provide facility locations. LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. • SRC#:5910 The agency release date for Leaking Underground Storage.Tank List was May,1999. This database is provided by the Department of Ecology,Toxics Cleanup Program. , • The agency may be contacted at: 360-4077179 . The Washington Department of Ecology Leaking Underground Storage Tank List contains some of the same sites included on the Regional lists.This list is being used because there are some"new"sites and it includes a site identification number. Because two lists are being used,sites may be reporting twice. • 111F711 For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767 -0403. Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 114 y i 7 • WA Site VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. Register The agency release date for Toxic Cleanup Program Site Register was May,1999. SRC#: 5911 • This database is provided by the Department of Ecology,Toxics Cleanup Program. The agency may be contacted at: 360-407-7200. The Washington Site Register Toxics Cleanup Program report details activities related to the study and cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Model Toxics Control Act. Note that the State of Washington cautions that information contained under the Site Description is summarized information from an Independent Report and the Department of Ecology is not responsible for the accuracy of these reports.This report includes some leaking underground storage tank sites. C) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1/4 MILE • UST's VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/4 mile of your property. SRC#:5909 The agency release date for Underground Storage Tank Database was May,1999. This database is provided by the Department of Ecology,Solid Hazardous Waste Program.The agency may be contacted at: 360-407-7179; Caution-Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks,especially those used for residential purposes. D..DATABASES SEARCHED:TO'1/8 MILE ERNS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/8 mile of your property. SRC#:5598 The agency release date for was December, 1998. The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database containing records from October 1986 to the release date above and is used to collect information for.reported releases of oil and hazardous substances.The database contains information from spill reports made to federal authorities including the EPA,the US Coast Guard,the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation.The ERNS hotline number is(202) 260-2342. RCRA-LgGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/8 mile of your property. SRC#:5896 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was May, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal.The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation,storage,transportation,treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Large Generators are facilities which generate at least 1000 kg./month of non-acutely hazardous waste (or 1 kg./month of acutely hazardous waste). RCRA-SmGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/8 mile of your property. SRC#:5896 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was May, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal.The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation,storage,transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities which generate less than 1000 kg./month of non-acutely hazardous waste. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc.at 1 -800-767-0403. Report ID:99330A111 Date of Report:September 3, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 115 / SEC. 20, TWP. 23, N., RGE. 5 E., W.M. PETERSON 611/4 / I IONSULT-ING \ \\v / R/M JJ6. H FOUND CASED CONC MON. \\`,� ./ / I \\ 1 \ I \ C1R.CN J78.7(NW,SW) 7 :ri. I I / I I- _ `\y / 1\\ 5" �� \� I 1 EX. CB•r.PEII � I \ I i� 4030 Lake Washington • CB. TYPE rr TOP 344.4 \ Q\ \* JJ77 COULD NOT OPEN • / 1� / 1 "lir Blvd.N.E.,Suite 200 \p \ '. 4 IT.344.7(SW) I EX. CB EWE I / �" / I 1I Kirkland,WA 98033 IX SSMN i1I77 IE JJI.8(SE) 70P JISS DT If JJl.6(NW) TO IE J40.4(5)/ 1 NM JJ7.7 `` \ ' 12-/E J40.5(y') I I� Tel(425)827-5874 • :1R.CNNL J26.9`((I£SW) \ : I cs CAry / 1 I Fax(425)822-7216 PTU GA_ V WMa _ II �/_!� .ram "�' sue':- I X. url- _ I 1 1 �s `� ewe' - /�// Ray 46.6/-- i {�_ _ }. 13•I£6ETATIW_i —I I11__-- 5 'KI .\ .-_� 1• �`� l !Cr.CHI.J4O7(NE,SW) / ..J SH�56:37'EI-�29.3—11 - d / 1.. ....700.. _�II / , ' / \ —.-256• '%/ 6'WOOD rENCE r I-L�, c— 50• • 50. Q k -------1 V`k . (#r -r (,--•35 i L�Si' ) ice.--"J6�`�'y L-- -1-- - rz.J e �` NJj� � , ( 4?r���.e k C� '.';��// /' - '(1)Pj 'l• I I r J� -��- Q 'I� £X. CB rmE R a \ G a ,� .( %' l2'IE.>[40.9 fN)\ l ! I /' / r \.)\ I/\_,y ♦t. • . TOP 338.9 h \• 1 •PTL \ ► \ 3`E` 1��S• • /I I ! _ !:: ' E (E) h1 ` v ` �,T E (EJ ` `A I I 1 I 1 / .t I r1 I , ,�z�98zaE 1 ,\. 17 \\\`J � \ / \ w, W \ 40 1 1 I 1 �� / / L---= L—=�\ J `--- . 11117110II /X\ / \'�' 1 I.\ 4� 1�,�.I I / / ; W ----J W --- �( aT-1� Z F. �I / \I \\ �_�♦+\� �, \`11:: k .q Q}I / y/ r9r'• r s \ 1 50. . so• �`\`� \ W � U • '���� I `` ti\� �\ �1149*-i " ''',.... 1'.— 6_ i_. R-_1r.—._._._ .,1 . VO a L y „I I 1\ I \ti\���\� h rai,I./, , .�= =1— - —4.- - Aa;ao ^ W C �� 1 i \��. I A --p----O----- -�—ROAD A• Maits u�U u Z > I/ II..I c� I 1\' pia F try.- II• //• k ,�r`\any` l`\sl � N‘ .� sQ�*;I 1 rro rr i I I W. s° +,6` 1� - moePTL I '' lh�`\ 1 ` ��\\ :`\ I L/S�' / r-- •\\ • I �� I I �' vV t5$ NUMBER DELTA RADIUS LENGTH \`\ I .` �`,` `,�\'d• I TRACT ' -,---.\ \A43- PARK 1 /, I I' 1 '� I 5,402 sr. ?0 / \%�' 1 ° - �.04z' � Cl 1342840" 25.00' 55.68' \\ I \`_� \ \ \\ \ r`'// --.�) \ -~� 50 `yam iE:7T:7i c' \\ / / \_.l' 67so aL 14.730 aC Y M Il s. D,t / _ I X I I C2 2877'12" 125.00' 62.08' `\\ ( \\ �ti \\ I -\' —_ - 7r. I /I I I 11 u Il I •\ \� \ I\N I /• / P// 0T�L. 1. t 7— ,--JO' I `\ \ii \ J \ 77.! `\%',/ j 2 11 '. _ igi I1 .- 130•/ - •3., 2 C \ I f"� .TS.T al. / < iti �y f/' /��p • muniummilimmimmi : \\ x� \\ I . ` 4.67d,�� /// \\E",- Q `-, __�S�<• ppQ1E�CT0MANAGER • •:•\ \ 1 \ / / \ >` DESIGNER .1 sR/0 '.`•\ \\\ r4- 4 �,//<,\ /�►+.� aoacED J STUB ` I ��\\ ?\� {�141'\4.623 aE / \♦ "\ I /1 DATE 4,40/00 `\n.L ♦` \ `\;�\\ \ ,Nl./ \ I r FlIE NAM[PP7NER23 40' 0 40' ,,•'T 1/, 1\. S: t, \v///\--- y-� .1 \\ MINIMMIIIIIN el • SCALE i' 40' • .... .. ........ -'\ \ ♦\\ + \ .\' \ 4.5"sr. ( G 1 4 • _•\ 1 \A -- \.--- N ,i1 7'j .J• • \ t ✓t' e• 7 ,�'910NAL s4'\ • \ • \\ cG `\ •`\ �k.' `���� ( MIRES:9/9/00 \ \.% ��� ..�' _ .� _` - STAMP NOTVALID NDD \ \ y''a(/J JC UNLESS SIGNED AND DATED ' • \\\\ 4;'41111112\\�0�; "Q. ACT; 10 �HERM=0025 t • • SHEET NUMBER 2 or 4 6'_(11-0. �X l`i i ... • • . . • . • ..A,, i,„,,,,,,:;:,..,„:„..,„_,.....,,,,,,,.„„,,,,,,,.....,;,..,, ;7.,....,....„,„„„t,„... .,....z„,....,„, ,,•... „...„...,..„...,... ......, .., .. ,,,.4.1,;40/".,,, .4, -,4.":•".- ,•••,•••••••,,,,,-.:....,k ••••:.;••-•••• -..,•••ktalp•car ----- r:1 A= •"-F.i.:17„1"Pig:•••?•) =1,4 :--iti.--.:.-s=174;11.;,-'''.4...':19:-"T„,:;*•"0-51`:,-1,:'' ..111,4,-..-sr.r;V:(1...),11,•••,,'-';‘,',%,-•-„.i!.?,•;'.:1&••„;f#,,10,.,14,.:..4.,--1:•11..'-",:,:,.'1,-....-k.1.2' Itzt,,,,l,v ,••;i.,; •i't,r;',,utl,•,,...*•,1,4:.;,1.?4,7.,-,,,,`,:,e,. ,,,,-0-jef",-,...s,. .. ,"?" 'Y, );,,gr•,:,,,,,,,- ..,, iji If,'..7.4.-..-:-.7)4...0.-,;•-•1.7..2 • :...,t, ,-....-'••.-.-..-_..,•••!.......t..7., ......4. ‘.....-...,:e?,..---.:-.‘,... ...„..7,,,.- •••••,... 4.-.„.4%,,,,,A...., .-,v-• ii ,=.; ,....,,,,,ez.„7,.:,:y.•:-,...:,•?;',,:•.„,...,-;...-.r‘. „....,„4-,••,.., •244 • ...4,,..,-„/ --, ..e..\ .,..,.t...,, ,..,•,-,..q., 4.,«If •,:c.f.,' , r'... .... . ..‘ <,ee -,,e4e r ,, ., ....,2;y:: ,,,.,,,..-.-,...,..;:,_,,,,,;..,,,,,,-„,, eir,:.._.,,...:,._4:-;.,-..=- .9.::: . .r,:.,544, lrk44,..,_ ‘, ..._ ,,p, ,:,:„.,,,...-e;,-----''''',4'."-•''''' 124e.l''' e4 . :11:1'. ...),i; ' . s'11..11. ,gy*..4 ,, 4,1.,r„,(1,,,9• . rz,,,,,.,..f,•.,,..1,,,..4,,,...,,,,,-.,,,,,K;,..5./.....,..r.,„7,,z,,,,,..c?1,,..,„,<,.•„7,:r.,,,;,,,0,;":„..v..:!,,i.,,,..„,..„.ii-.•:,: -1 -.i.' ''„;',...... '',10••••... ',. •',. , \''-••••e:.*!..0.,,per-.s-,., -L.;- ..,,,,,_•p-.•.‘,....., , -„,,,.:.„ 44„.. il 1.- , •,„••-1/4. IN.:, B4,--N?-.2,-.....17*-.-.--,....,,:s„..74..-.,..,Ars .,v;v::,--y54-.. • . .- ••• - ..„,;.,-,,s.....!.. . -.• ,,, ,',,zto§lx-ALA,..,:0- ...,:',e; --- ,-,,,A-,;.:f.:1,6•.,..... 4i--,', 4-,, . -, -,?•-.,-- :-;:!--i-8,,p...1,-;::-:!.?•.-.:-..‘il-,AI=J•••••=-Z4'--,:-; .. . ,.•'•' ,-:;.v...-:[-x;"t.:•;.%-ss'''''',--:' ‘- ,;•.‘.•-`,z7z,t--- --- ..-''-. ..••• _.---*"•'''4,',,''4,.-„:.-.7-:',..Rt t''''''':' 'ii's,;',''',4 'j"7 4"J.,' 'I. 4', -• ' .' *-.1 7, •••;;;,&-,?-0,-Iffe• ' li : ,-;.,' -,,,!:••;•-',.:,:-.7;:_-/.,,,,,c1-})-:,,.,,....3,t..1....,f...f.,i...-.-7'','.-..:,, -,c.:.4.1,-•; :g-7..,, 1- --„, •-.-------', -., .•, ; --- ,P4' ',•••;1.v.;,\L-A. .7.-At•- ,,tr istit ,. 1 v e.. ,,,,,..... .,,,,,., -- ,.• . .f.7..../:;...-.r ...!,..,,,...,,,,,...c....,-/i...„-7,:„,.--,,,syieg••,..•f, . .-e, ,k, ••,.\.`.. ....,.-.;:. ..,,',')f J;..81tiy:,..:si,..4..,„..1. ,,..._ .z..,,i...„t•, ,.. . •,,e7,..q.,••,„1,„,...,,,,;. , ,., ,...1.,::::::••:„;,...,......„1.i„z.,,,,,..*„.„...,:•,..•.„..,:5:3,,,-,-.,:tai.::,..-.:,,...:•;.,,,,,::::-......t.„.,.3.„:.„-,,,„,:„ .. _•,:_,,,-••:;:-.--,, .• ,•,,,,, •• • ii, ....-....._,,.\,. ....:„ ..." ....,,v.4ff,tr_ •.,;:.,F.,14....„.k.,a.,,,,,,,,:, . . \ ...) -- • ,.e. ,,g", ' • til '4'1. ; •'4?.".,.. t, .•'' -7\•,..j'41.1Vgi:,...., ''. . I '''''':-":':;,:.:--tr.fiix. .."...-;Z:A.:..'1"-•:;;.i...;;•;',....11•C•V.•;' ,:--•:-..';,-'i.1".:.',,-:.e...'::4•:°.,-.1.,:,,,:,,,:. 1_,:1}' "41' .:7„y ..-,.."-', ...--'5'.?;-. t.'-'::f"-,...--'-,--.' -41,-,,,p,ic ‘' -1, kr., -' '- :p2.--7 71- • ,-.-..! .4":„.,-..-.:,..,....4..,;,-,,;,,...,7:,..,-, ,,,• =•,:fis,.,z.----, v•;.-:,,,, -----\\ • .,...,, ,. ,,,,.1-2.: . , 1.tt,u...n ',.."'.1k...1 '.''', •;. -..!..."0.,om , ....'''f''':'''''. .- \,'‘n.,,, OCAt•-f.,.,:e "-'4,,'''':',‘,.,' ',., :,:,..;..;-• c-, ,e,x-lk'4.1.-,A,'.7--,7.--k,h,,,.-?7-, -9.-.0 (.-',;,.\ t 1r \%;- 'y t'' .- n'.----1- - J--; "-• g_ -- ,....,".. ??,-..x.._ •';';'''' .,,-,...-:%:':::::-.....374:4,:.,!.....1,:c1:::::,,,:-....,: 'Iril.4.4,..:,:.„,:,....:,,,...-‘'..01-4:,:/: ......,, Ny•,7,.. .w:,;' , "'.,.,..,;;.:i.\,..!...:,i.,:,.:..,,1,;,•,13.'r:l.....:,;....„:4.i.,;0.4_,!„,,,..4.,t.:',,, , , „ ', ..,, Ti,";;;;4•4;:i'41,-11 '''';,::.,',,';''...:r!.;:"ar:,-..1)",/,:;',1.'7!...,:,./,,4•,•,e .,.;_.: ...,-,;:, , ,:!,...,,`,,,.,,,,, --,,:-?f72, ‘.0117,,,L,?4,4.-i4 ?•,..!;',-,;,;,,,. 4,',....,-...4 Ni;II\ ..%,'',,.•c. :-.1-'S., ,-"I'l(X,4").-F ir: \1W i.,M'' .fi.F. . -.2. _.-!"atf;4'..-.: ...•::'S':•3 '''''`I i ''''11. (/1...;IJA: ..k;.,41.4, \ :...\\, :7,,..-1,.:4!.t.:.: ., -,:•::,i4(p...,,A,\ ,,.... 1 ,1,- :.- ' f.:--.;;:., -;,,-A.•4., . ...,,:„:„,:--,-, ....4,..-,,,,, ..„,,,,,,,,:;,..,,,,,..,,..,,,,..,,,, -..,,,,•,. ,,,, . . ,,.,4„..,,,, .,•,,,,,.,*,\'%4it? ';'::%.kt '.-,,-,-- ,,-.;:ili,14.,e.14-•21, 1 40--,-1.;14. -''‘.. ., L''• Z '...'.\ ,''ea% , 1 ', .',..,....,,.,,.....,,'j...',,,,Z•,,,,,:" .':,;',....,''..•,'...:,';',.,,,g I "...;;,41•,'.1oft.'"r.,•,.'",•,•,•,,•..,,,,...y.",'„:.(••,',4'. ••,"•-),. ' •;*".. ''''''..' ',,..,,,""\''.4....0"44 C'''f' •'•‘.. •. ••'•;;411 1('-'• 1.4 IL:41' .''"-4'.-A-', 0, .,:,.,•,.',.;.--,,,1-;.---...---. ,p.,-.,,,,•;4,c.,,,,,.,,,,I,..,-2-c..„,-,....:.••:: ::•;„--• 1:. vlyz; -, ,,,,• %,..-", -LN,i'Vel 9"-I'"\''.‘:. ''-".."1124C '6''''''‘i '', " •'"." ' • '•''' ' .4,. N•. ‘ • .,. \fi„. '<AC,V, -,",.! • ,....:;,•":;,.:;,•,"5'1.,9•1%; " 4:31-'1".7.;:,'"f'•'14,4.'2. 7,...,::(4":,,..;.:'•• :1.,,,'''",,,:,.. ,i,,...,_,el--„, •..-..;:.',,-..1/4:,.,,,..,- --;.",-,,,,kui.k,<,,,,,-.'„-,•-•...,., ',7.1-i,:,,„ ,'!.114.16..,41.,,f,',74,-ir- .....,..,c„();:c„ ,%...-s„.. ,. ;,.,. .. . . ..,1--.6,7,2,..1. .„ v-...,k, . ;,.:, .--,...:2.,., -.,.;,,---; -y„,,,,,..,;.,-. -, ,,-7,,;„ ., .,.....fr;....,••,-,r,-,4474.9,-'.', .4, '...-*...,-1,'..,,,,..- ii--,::::„7 --.4,11., .,,,s,,..\-.. •,-,.;,•• -.,i.:-,-,-- -4- -:,- • 4,,,,,,..1.,,i,t.rvitr, -i..,ftsi.., 10411. 't "'P"' - *4- 41,17k,tpf ;,,, '.7),`*•••,`,4-1,:.' '*."•--' • -;7. • -*,. 'v:-`-':-;4-4..1.;••:„' • •:?-._f- .1;I. :: -•. I," ...:,..Ni) -,,.. ,,„,, -... ..,..•:•,,--,..),,,,,-,.--,, ,...,- .• -Nr. t.,.., -- '...,,t. ar.; .,,• i••••'.-. %g-, :....4.,$,,,,..., •••:,•.•;•,.• , ,-p ./• ,4-4..• ! -.;) .....•• • • ,.., . .-4..•.•.• ••••.... •::,. N•.. ,, • .,, ''..^)-'' ,I"•-/..' •,:.-- !F•F",4:. .`'.:‘ :.:•- •--.••••.-",J. i,')*, 1 1 :'''.,', 19, - ':)...., : -41, ,3.., T,+.,- ;.14, ,,,,,,, .,„,:, •\•,. ..!•;:i.- --- .- --,,,,„•,..:,,.,,,.4 ,..ii.,....;.,....., _.. ••1 r,"...,,%•',..?.'4,;.,e,-i wiligizoottif •-.......,-,,- , ..„.,„,...•,,,,:,,,,;:,....,.....i..:•_....„,„. , •...,>,•:,,,,„:„...f,,....._v.-,...;.,,,.. ..,.... ,,g... ig.,,,,v : 1 fir,4,,gai,. ?...,.4"; \4' '.1%,;ttt. -:;-; t.'2„;4, ...,.,.04fe. .,..;,-,,......:. -..-,,,?......i ..,-,..-.-.•...c.,„;..-,..:-..,-, --......- ,..,,..41z:-,,,,..t.016.,,,,, 4---.,..4i.-it••,,i, .: -:-.7,-4...,..1,-.:.....?-....-,..i-:,;,.;,-,‘:-..,-...;,• ,':: -:?: Pi2 iivilipil,...4.-.:,;,-,......z.1 !ki.,..4f,,,•!..yi..,..4,, .,,,,,, - 44,0(4. * -.-. ,N. "-,.--• ta, .....,. -. - • ... ::,,, ,,,-.-..,.:-.:',-tt.. .,_,,, , ..„-,-,.. ,,,......--„,...„„kr„,. ....ia.„1-144 iiI,..,-,...k-'' . ...., -.--- ..,,,,,-,, ,,,,,.., -,,,I,,•,,,..,. . ... ,, ,,.. k,e,,,.. r R.4,1.N. ‘.4 i-; . . # , - -tor ,.- ...-:-.:-. .,-.......,..-....":',„",-,f.--,;.-.1'-'4,•...k..:,14.L.-.....-....,,-......,,,,f,f,„•-•,:e.-,.::,..-4,-...,1,•••••:-- •,. . -.-);,,,........,..,tt.$ • .•• ,,''*,`..r...1Z 1,....;t•,:•_•••‘.j.,!•,, V"....,•,'.‘, 5 , ,j.u,....,,,....a •yj...1).a: , .,, ., „1. ,r-,..x. .5...0..;,..v.,-.).',1,,ti. ,,,.. .,,,,,,,....I •....,.....,.,...k.J. - -,•••N".„....,,,, f TYS.t•' 4: "'",,t,'. ' . LI.,...4 I , 1. , '.71?",: • .:;.-1 4:7;;\.-., ,‘.`,,•\z".,,'',4.'....:1-r-,;;;',:z;....--,/,...,,,-- -—--,„-.7-...,*-:rz,-, -4: t-Ztk\t, - '".- ,....--...'" .,..f *Y,„'•.c.:- A4'...,---•;,,:,',,T,V>.•'' I; ,'JI, - , ,5-r &len, 91,,,,,,... ',• ''' ' ••."'"114..?, • ' • 1 ‘,.'!,• -': _.-A•••• . -:_ _.,,.!..,2•••ke,11',..111..4;>:),„,;44:„.,,,,,•,;..,1;,;%,,.:1!.,,,t7,•,;,:i;,:;,"?‘;' ,,-; ''•'-•;','-:":''.1",.::.<:!....f.7..;;,',, '.•. -:.,,V:', ',. •1,,S. ,t.::•:;, ••••;" 1-'1'.71!! V. '''il '.'2 \ ./V kl•*' 4 •;/-'''\ .4&4"1%.7:-.:".'''1'-,4"'''r-A's''' • j'-• -•-.1,44'''•'!'',44f,'',1.44".0,-,'41,‘,,,,;'1"'‘'R"..V.:10''/V• .• ..,4',.;.,•':•.•:n.i.-",'''. : ,r'•,, 2.• ::,••'';:''',..""•:•• •.'•"L•''''.1' '‘3,. '' ...'-'\,. • -, ''''l..". a.' • .. ..' '\ 14 'P 04\k\Qk ''',4;::: ',:*''''';''''' "J 454.:Ci447!jr44.,i1P.ktrt,,,,,':#1.,_,,,,,,V1411.:Oto Yilfi:M..4,;:i. .:'-_,-,47..i:':,...44s4::r".?; s',5'1'44 '''''''; ‘‘• I.S,!,t4. - . :.;:-.2------. .,.,-... '''.i:-4.j.P'.' '41,,> -s.' ''e.• ',,1 At•\t,!,,••• .1,._.;.,p-d•••;tii-, !. .,••„ir,.•=g4,-,,,-..--,.,.:4;(-.,-,!0..•,/..z.-70,-,:.•.,-4.:#4, 0---- •-•A .,....„.- 4-:........•-•,-).•,,i,-,4..r•-:.4:40 -;..,;. ••:•,-, :.•,,,c4t--t,., ..z.•••':': • ....-- ..,,;' ,' 1 :-,k...,.. -.°It.1.3'','• = .,...„.."4•\`-i,v7',-„,.•1•,.--4442,qi,4...,••-r".=,p==-,• ,t".11';",',. ''.•,.4:- .::.--,.- r-----, Av.:•,,••••";b,,,.'•e,*-1?..ile.,0,,.,,A--.,..,,,Is-A•.,111:,,,,/,•%-: - yr,....''' t'' 1••ai * C... • ,! t.. .; ''...--- ---:".--;----. ... .i..,- ‘ ,....:,, sit,,...,‘:,,,.r,•••,:: ',...,, --:, '.,,,skt;m,,,,,,,,',.;,,,lf?„,..-4,41.,,-...,‘.,--y-• ..'-',1'.1'. ,..4;;;',,,, .1,.,,,....41..i,E,„-Itti-'''NxitzW.:•:,,,,.,,e,/„„i,:g„:;,-.,,,14.0t, ,',„%,,rit.:1_,:-,....:d.....44,04%.,•*„.6.,: ••',,..A...i g,..', ,,...:-._ ''.__ _'..---,(-- ...„ .,...- ,.' <, \ rta:, ,.....•,‘..',..., ,..i-4,,•`i,,- i'it.4.,,i'',%•:„.,-6 •N,1\, ,•',.'.:`.7 ., e:Ii FM. t',',X44.:...,A,1%,.. .• ,.,,,, '''' 'A.Pic ,fti,le.g-,fii.;4.‘4',,L,.. -,„*„.-,,e.174, If.4.1.;,,,,02.t,,..,,t„;•,--,.---.4.,,,,,,,: ,,k1:,,,,,,i,,t.,,§f: -J,.,7,,ii .••.•,...:„...:.:.• ,,.,,s,„„,„....„ , ,,t,?..„:•,,,,.4„..„-,-_,•,.-. ,,,,, tl•:•,,,,.. '\ . . .,•,\,;-4,,,:ir..r i .. _'-5?,,,,,,,TM,',$igics?,71't #14,PT1.,':;.:!'''.,','.;'-',i:4;'i,.',11,4.61tf.t.:.I's-':":;Z:ifi::%:':i',6:;;'12f,kflt' ' // ..-....,:';',1i Vi if r.. A 1 - 4'le•'''.44-''V • '41'':;., :'."... ';. ''''is.. \ ' 7. .t.,,,,\--;•./.. -,i;.,:-.*'' -;'%1,,r4,s.',''''w.'- .-'*"1.1,- .i.".,' --7,;.:.;',..;.•;Ifir-,51, ' ':i.,,. 11:,,,N,,f:•:.,,,,;•••;•,:q.z.f.:,7,7-.' ,e.A, • -- ii,1,,i411 4,,,!.., .kfa ,, . ii•i• --.--,:'.. '*e.4' •••••-.sn'• .4 ''. ::Nli<3.-'44,1‘. '''' "Ait''''''44"0:''gr:in ...-.'" :111' L'. .if::.:',5•1-;'.:4*, 1.•;;"(.;,•,-;;:tki,t',.4`;:k4 '.84.-.C.,:f..:.: Xe...". ->"' 1 ,.. ::`4, . ...... :47.; . ..- ' "" - :• -I1‘, ,..-&„:•4.1.,A11,0•,-- It...1-z - --1,44:: N ' :-•-. .6,7-•.[p--,k., -,,--.4.1-•• "' ..,-,--,..,,....,•: -.4../..:•.„,„-lik.-- --- --••••••-‘..•-•.11,-• ---....,.--1-• ••••-...-,..-,.•--, .."7,..",r'ril.0,Y'• ,,,,,, ,.4 4.1.,..,,,.1.....4.,„", , tr...,.9.'2,g,.....e.,et...X.ie',1-.• ,,, ..x....7.',1`a4te.r.,...":•',,,;rnAiir;; ,'." Vn.,..75-%"`1...,''.si, -1...",`."..V.. ''' •'' '..1‘•frk:4 '' . .:', ,....7,..e.,„....,vt,....re44 A„,„V V 4.•'Apsal*.4t . 4.,..-••,.....,.a..K. • -.4., r''''''..", ' '''''^'' ' • ' r....5,e,...,;;;\x... . ,.„ 4.c.k ., •--. .4--,':-,..lo.v.,.tiz, ‘1,;„..; - - . ••••••••"'ll'&4,,riel- .44„,..-,..7"'rt.,'. i.,....,...-- ,„_;:c...z.,44"..A"c,,_ -•-•c-p,,...,-. , ..,„.....,!.‹..,,, ,v "i+,,,,•; „ ......-i--,',Ve.!,.' • . .,.,., 1 ,((..•-;.,,,. .,*:,.-,',.:-,:-..•*k ts-,i'li4;-,A"'.:ff'•f:.-;, ..---.,-"'=,Li..,v, ••.-.A,,,_C,,,P- a-"-eq,„,•,,e,t *t.....,,i.,•-•-,..-.4,0,1-i,•:slil-.-4A1-; -,a•••••e,. .-;•-',,j-•a?...!.i,...4 .3;••,-=;•••:!`-'..-A ik.,--;,,,--..ti• :...•:-' ''.4t- • ../ -=., ,:-..,„-,:;4-.....-....,I,- ...-,i,i; 1 ; ' . ,v.:....., .i, • . rig, 0:14`. r-',144,-.'1' ,': ''' '4,..4,14,,,i' :',e445N:::':'$'''';v1i',:,..,1001A. si,4%.,14.yc'..e '''r: 7,,g.:,,,?.;;;11.7,4;••,- 4.-kr••••••,e..--Av.,,,e•f-.-- i-.....A4.it.,,,z,,,,,tf,• ..,..:.., • , - ..•,./ -•,..,.; ...,11•1•4f4Y,1.'2- %: ' , . , . k ...,,, 4•,..ypc.415.6,•!...-, -0,,I.;It,,,.',- . • ',./*''li,.. ''',„(4•&... ."...,,.,1'. "A.\V,kr.,,,,.:. ..;..,51*4.1,WP-',.;'‘.:i''';''''.1'.4T 7.....4"1,41"'N iiA, l's"' ,:..r?.2.• ,r2,':....,1,..4,,, gf 4..'•l';',.!1-,....: .‘trkinyt:Ii..' 'r, : - . 1 'i'?!..-il *fAV,.....c.-0T-Arit?..4.5r.i.,,r ,,47...!:;,,,4- ....-.4.,.{-• ..,-i.,,,tut., . ' ,„„,,,21;,.. .-,,...5..,,t-lr•t„."p..,„.1 N..,,,.„.F•••••„-.„rv,,.-.,,..,"..1.x....iii,,,.,.;,!....ul. k ....t, .......i...7...;.?..e.:' , :.,*, ., ',/,,C.,4.1„7":..,1'Ln.; )7,4' -p...,,,....:.;, , •.-, ••,r.,.-.•5''A, , • ,,...,%.,,...,•;,. ,J.,....-c..e,...• -re:qt.* •...11:.,,•..•:A,„.',',"'.• ,:' . .7.0„...5 -,. ), 4 2:a., . .„.,......„,,e 2,..... „ ,1. ,-.,-,4.-•t•, t4,-i'.;'.1.4.,..., '4...ie"iit;IFFT.',X:,:c'_...1:',:,.:'''',',,,,',:q:.^-.1:..,...,.1....„.,..,.;-5":„.:rio:,„(,_-,,,,.,,.ti,...,-. ,.1-,g,li:2 '-,.v..-;:i•t,._,,,,, ,,,,-n.,,..,t,,:..,. .4-4.„•$,,,) ; vi- ' -,•'i,,.i.:;.'%.•'x.,,....‘-1.i, ,,,T..: /.•• -A_.. ,t: -...-....c.e,i, &,''''•,,',,,,,,1''r " '',:,4*,\, ,,,'.',"..';'-• .,..1.r. ;.:',141""--tP%'''iii';:'q:4','r:;'%!':4i*c*.'e.P•,'4,N P , • 4 in73',' ,•-• 1 Ir -Tic',,,'Ak,;.',:':',.'*,>'."04!t I. ' '17.:`, "'k -5-- ,..., i.,r. • - .-',-,- -.;:•••,-,- .,,i 1(tgt.f. .:,,,. ,4 .e. .•: ••. ,•.:,-,;,,-,,i.4x.:14,,,, --,..,„,.:A-0>•.,,,,,.....,,,,,..,,-;,;$-.•.-..,,,,,,t.,1,1,,,,,,. .• .., „fi s- Ir.."' 11111 -oh'4t.t ' '-'.,,..1- ..'4/e ' `....- ;"..'''t"I'f.'•'w... •:' -..:".?..Y-`-:•'• • -,•'''••••• -.;!.. ":'e 1'kt'.••-• '41?-0--7 -,;-'7.,-,,•..9•I'-A-ri'.•••..44-4,;,47,14.:,,,,,-,/..,"'•; ,:•.'t., :?,41:,;,t,,,,:t•in,:, •1,,,,ir t' ,... -. ,,.;.,I'S' ,.. , , ,, •i c'.,,_ V.,.- :.f, t,,''t ,-)1,12f r=p74,-,,tr; ..' ,..;--t-t."';',-1.,,',,,.. IN 4''',1r,,,,'-';,''; .9,- ' ..,c'...... Y,, .t'.-`,:;.i..--... ve-AW,',A..0.5r..;.:pc• ..d..k.•.1.1,..k,i.'.' R)••Af.,4"..,:e:•,i.,‘ ',‘1. • , ' 1r- m- ,4,#--;%-ml,--11-1 - .:1!• - -,--,:i•••3,: -11 s._Api,-re- 7 ,..-/-,..--7'17.Ya-7....-P-o,.,' •A.,,;.•......x,,....,:',-„..."•“/„...!::„....,c_; ,i',,1".‹.•4„.,:•• qt.,..4.4:174,,,,,,,,f-4,%,,,, ,.Z.2,4:1".W.,,, ',...!...-:,„,..".4-ert1;4'..!(..i•1",",7 I• \•,• • '• ,Ilt, '.1. F.„IA, I,'"4, -' ' ,'"'.,. :4i ., =,,c•A' t ....; \'W .,.+N ,' . i,,..--fic`' 0."). 4.)i-:)."1-tr-'''I' '-;'••••'';:''r• -II,411%0-7,1,7-,4.g.,1,.,.14'-'-'`‘,..,*..,....."^-.:".y.,_"e5...-.t:'-...$•j're.1,--•..,-.Wqr'%....4.: -. . , 1....41. ' ii M.--it,'tSf li,' •:.'7. ',' .' NI: ..,. 14 '"`'r.'" .. '+. .'...,;..:4 Cs!.':L'440.'•:...i ••-e•''",;.'5•••"4• '-i ..tr'•:fe..'';',:i%,,,,,%:" ..,,.,V4P,..,'..,...,.175.4"i'V'L-Tr'46,:•.,4,--,,,,t•:.-r,;_::,,,,,,,a, .-... ..,.:-,....,--i..,2 .., ,1001—,•oz.'.:',6',41, 1.' ••z.,'''-:. ' : 4 1',,,11 .t.:. 4/,'7,1W.,,/ 6Ni .:•,',Y-1•,.;..,-,gt;:ft,..'„l':. !,f,4. 1,-, ,^-".•,";4.0,,,,c1.,7-t,,'t:..:':•‘).,,,,%.,:t -...ir„...•••••/•„.•:g-.:;:v;is",..(.•.1.-n`f-z,,,Irc.,,:Alliv.:•s`..4;,:'..-k--•,•:. • _.-.'-'6 ,* --..,.1.....,e. , ..,.ci, le 4,4, .0.,.,..,:1_ ., •,‘•41, ..".'",,,",,,,:-'` 1 6...,,:;',,,*,'' /44"9,,,.,,,rit. -"''.•:•-...,,•4•-,-t.!4r...."!._:',x4,4„4.4.7 ,:,•4,?..4:4',..1.c.•Seir.) ;:idAkt2.7.6:..:4_,:.: kinse;,....:,,,''4 {,17.1,‘ . 'Jiff 411,ti'LG '' .?'I ,'..„2".••• A , ,,.,..,:.,4 , -,,..,, . _.„,,,,,,.. •, ,?,......,,,.. .,,•,..., . ....,,. ,./'•••••:4,.„,e4, '.. ,`, ..Z4M..•-.'".ilt•;.,-./..'4.',1 ,P,,'":/.-,-.::..,- ...,:',..;. P.O...:C,:.,.--.•,z''.‘,1.;•.,1%,;-4 el,-,.;,::',.• '`. •',,-Zt,, , ", YO .1."•;.4 -4, ''',-),',:*2:§ r ,,t;•. :,•15N1!?•4^.-1,,,• ••'',''. W--'111.'-!' '-.-----"'-• •"--L'''' •- '' ''''-1---'-:'' i'4"-'*''',°114•-•"*.:144-. •1.:1:1',',;f1:.'•:'-'.:-1-;(ii•-:•4';';:',;:it.c.f. ,..:.:''.1%,.. .4:1-.1&V.•tlf-!..,'",*•:;'.'.1...4V,.::e.:::-;:i; 41:,4?..:!,.,',,,.1/4'a''..'-1:: " ,, ,11 1 -hl• 0,14 ;... ,,,-,,......-- . • q..„,- .4,1 -,,', 1 -7-L71 ,i ''.-';' :0 - . "VI ..., ' .-1•• '".1,'„';',' : -,, ...,,„,„„ •IIE .4 a. .,,. • .,.„....,,,, ....,..„, v.,„c,T...f.:.,.........:. .e,,,..3,,,,,,,,,,.,,..?;,..5s..t. ...!../„.;,,...,.._.:.... ,,,•...s.„1„;„........,„••••,•:.„0:-•_.•,;..,..:-,...,,,:.,,..........,- -„::-....,,• .. , _,.,..,_ :`.7.-_-.=-7-r-e--7-,..,,,"'r '!;,..e.,c1;.!, ',.,..dc-,/,t.t.,,,• ,M:/, 'II i ,,'.,,t :-,,'t '' It..,•••••-., ',:t.tqA•.,••-•• -11"P '•'''';'"I''.,'", ."...', 7••••,.Y.,'?7",,:`:'•'•.-,...,..0.1.S.:••",,',.•r...-4,- .'..* ',i.';';'--''''',:.4.--,,,,, s:C4.,,,442‘.- Sic,41 •''-;:, 4 ,ki.3?,pi' *- • '. 14.•,At . '...:Ii'-;.,i I ',..:1 '.7:4 'il•., ).,,,,,..,,,,,:, , ,•..,,;,,.:,,,,,,,.i., • r. •• . ,•,.•:„.,-.; :.•.: ...'..T.7:4Y.,:::et',„,4)::.•:•1•'• ':-.•.''',...•.Y.-44!"•1C,,,i'.,;•en.•-•>,.*,,''''' ; 'i.. . ,, • ..--'i.l...-(; • •y . — - i . •,.-,.. !,41,,wr, ... -,,,7,,,,..,',.,•,4-:',..-:.t.•*-..„.,-- z.74--v.-.:,c.':::::-;.:7.•;,..;r.,,i.:.,`,9`,..47:::::.•7,1-7 -,.;;;;;.'7-,5e,!7;7'.0........,77:::,-;•:.:,„ ,,,, '''3' . liJi a,.., "..--'0i"1.; 1. -, ; ..,1 • ,.. .,,_.• //...,,,• l& , __.....,.-__,; '--.:,i6 'r"'''.''f'' '-'''.1-.•' '''')i:...i.t/... ,;.'•',.?-1,,';'.??:',14;';',.:...;.A."'" :;".-;';•..4WV-•;`';'''.%':ilt.,'..*:....r-7",•'L. '.'1';`-frie.iVi4:;•,•"'it',„.1n. ,. ql- 1 ..i•"'12,/' . '''!'71 14.'''' ' ) ..t.1/1!.k' 4'7.-.C. '.1.4.ni, t.„...-:^I!Uf I--. 1.g gi,:,.-•..-„».- ,i,,- -.,,....6..;.,.,„:-.,.r•Ts'..:41--;),;,;.*,:„-,..-3,,, ./..,,..,,.c.;,....4.,.,•,.,,,,:•_!•,,,,-.,-.%.,..,--.-i.-',::-,'•.7,':,‘›-.>,;";4,...?'..:,:!::•••:. - ' %. l'.-.-1 .- '' ' r r r' '•4'''.,• ';',h,')'1,..k.mi F_-2 1 xi' I .,.1,,•-•1'.,1,,,,.. :T;;;',4.:,.„4-?,.,''',..,;tr:-,..ft.n "..e''',,,,,'...;• f.1"/?.:;,„..,..,'%9'1,>r..Xiii-jr.,,-4',:.:;!...C...-„,:,...::•',....",.;,;.,;44i111111111 I,-N '1-, '„ ,, -,';• . '• • ( I i ,•;•^'„e: .4", ,Z 1,r. i ,-;,;*'..,-4,...,:.1. ,',"0.:•`.',."'"•:::',,,, :'•;%•'V-11,:tv;',0".".'"-.1"."•;-..S.'•'',;'A.9.'•,.:.5-,,;;.;••:;.',:.;!...:14:::+?'"7-....,.4 , \!.". :•1-, •,it.:A• '• i• l• . I • -1.••••••• 04, ',. .;:.*•• t;i4' • '.1 .14 1 i .01 ' ,...ba.....,-.„,.4„,,d4.„...; 4,..•-..,..5...;.. ". •44- ...,....-„r,:t,,,Y.... --2..." -•••tt.••.1•4•,.A.,,""-A...,„V',',........tp,:0%,e," • .-.-,• .1.....:!,, ----1, ,I,,,- ,,., , r i.,../0/.... , . ,- "..• • .., ..... 11 1 . ' I i.-tit. o.,:.- *t. I.,1' •I •-•:••- t.:.:.:. 1,,::1,„,;....3..............-----:74.....:""-",, .,''.- __Lk:.?,-,-.'''rtz,,,,4,,,P;,,•,0,:v....?..,-;.'„ ,',4 ";'-A.:-":' ,4 - •,, ',..),, .-z• .".",ev — •,I.. 1 '411,111'',7,tf,',5-• ,--r."'..:1 'Z'•":1"" .11Nir ' '.,..11-)t, 'if ltil,:" r.'•,71''''''' ••," -''''''..,...'..:r:,,'7V1:t e..' .:;*,'• ['I.'',' ' ;',? .'''.:'..t.7'..'-';:•:•-; ' c,. - 9dit;•'',• f lir,:,-.1,--,I "--'•''.:.'d,--.: .--.y„ '"--"-',---,:-.-4 -- •Ar- -.f.';.''' -'!r., '1'1'*.1,„i.A P*4.'?'-':' ..,... ".•,',''41'1** ,-... .. ' $,,„,'e-3,4•2..', '',e,':„.11.:.":-.1.'"-- •••,• -,,•':'.:••":1-'`'."-••••••,•.•"--"-'':--::.*kr,41\ /- ''',1;, 'i 1111i..W4111- '.".•-•t!'11 III )'•f:' .0444,41. `, ''s‹.., It•••"'-‘•-•k'.*1•ed0'•''i,'r.'.,.'.,..:.--.1.:.•..•:,,:•t.'-•:.•.,,4'',''.'-,L'':,''''/'-'.'.'...,.''.,''...••:,".,.,-:::"'.,-''ii4;•'i,;'..;2.,,i..'-"•..-"-.-;.•..,r..: 1A,,1,1.i--,-..'t4-"-•."(1-'a,,•.'.,..'"”,'',,9.,':-''-••t••,.',"'.,--=•,'-....'.,.•-1',,,.,.,.,..A-'§,,,:t.t".'.,,i,s,,.,R.,ks'..,g„:i,'.,.•'.'-;-'6t..,?,;t1,:.c.„s r-.'.tsr.,....'.-‘,.ti1',, ‘&:'e'.'.,--,%--..•:k'k'`.s\..s, '\N-<).-;,••.•-'S'.-'-'•,P.','s,,•,,5t•-•••4-1-:'•.5.i''A-Y'-'.:*,.:•"1Sii,.12;.•%,.-;,.-e-„''-"--,6•".'.--5.-,.-:.:.L•„'••'•..•4.'.•'11..''.\'''i',7.'•:9'.;j•.-,.,.':...:,',4-,„-'-,-"v-..2'-,-•,Z4./-—.. ':-.q4,.-,'••-'.,i:,,6':)4',',,1.,,..'.'.,w,:.",4..'",.:,.'%.,,",;„#).4,"-,.•,',•"i.,,,...,.i,:.";.•':..•:i„'if'i'.•f''-,,%R•"'•.,'„_:,.;...:.'...e,`A,.4.,•,'..:,.'i.•...,,..'....,,•..'i,,'1•'..''".,.-'i.'4••.,•,,-;,'.,A'•..'4'•,';‘'•.,'•).'..44A:,.t.-,._;.:l.'t.'4.-,4,4,,..'•,,1-,.4,,:t•*",2,-.,..7e.•,,;.'.,-.,..',(.._-.,...i'.4',,,r,-.\,.'4..,,,',;'4''',.'t1,a'i'.'.7tSv,,\..-,,s';',II',L''i',''r-.1.t:''A-4.''4-',',•.'t'.r.1I --I.-t;E'..''11'.71i'.gW'..-'...W!r:-_-,.-i-.1.,6ay);-1,1.-r,d11,•1‘,6f'a,pI,p1.,,''.•:'7.,,.,,-,,-..4 l-.'.'7'....,31.5._.,..'.c1 11rv.F,:C"1,''.,-2.g-,,','%,1I-i-..1...',.-41,".'1,,1,,111,,'1 '''I,/.','1.:•.-'/''•''4'' 0,'1._r,I•' -.,;, '',";.-„,,,,,.= : :,.,,Iy..-,1,: ', ' '-,',.. ,...,.; .1',A' ''''' . '''''.r:::t1:::'`:' ;"1"'4;?' ••-1'... 6.•'-'''';•• ••7';t!tk;,7;& s"";4W:11 .''6'' ;I'Y i ...;' ' '':''''' ',4'i.-"''''It';' '' , :4....4:j....t.r'?„'.,h,...'It.. ......', .„' ..' ; ^' .'• ,..';',4,` J '`,..'N.'.1*.',.. •••,.i...-..,t.•.5,,,t .:5,,.... -4.,` *•7:...4 A k- ',; .''' 4',.' ....,:s.‘ Pg--''...it '• it,,-..t, ,i• - I m-qiii I.§ .. • ......,, -,,-•,. ...---..„0, .....*,4"..../,,,,... 1,•-• . , I. • • .4 ..n, ,,,' 013.--..t.c.<T-,... .' - -,:-?71..,, . •;,.,.kL.4. . ..-..-..‘;,..•, ,f,...cift•--,.;.r•i...-•,.,.. :.4, ,,,, ,. „i.„,„„, . „: ,.,,, ,, .•t„,.,.. ............,„4„...,,,,..„, .,, :.,..,..„., ,, ),,,,,,,,,. _, _,_ .„„, „..„,..., :,,,,,„„,,,,,, __I..., , _ _, _.,r__ ..,,,, ..:,;.'4..,1,,,,,i,.,l'•'',••,•., :•';',,,,, ,,,i,:%z,,,r,,, -. ...-,,,,, ,4,,„ •, ,t.,',1,.-,,...,,--,,, . e-At..!,-,\.;-•=4„..--;_.r.g.--/Li",;;; „'"'"N'• As.i.!.`.t.1•,'s ,'t',',ff- •.?:Iris ..., :0, 31 r'11.:3••.'ill, - 1./.1111 71 %,141,1,,kti (4.;;=.-'-',-, ` .!.,,':"'S, -• • :L.t41-';`•••,M, .' 1. ''''A- ' ' •••''. ' '":•, ' ••••.. •<:-.,-- -'-•••• --,,,,, / \''',- - '• -,...--,,..-,-;,••.__-__ .: --- - I , ft. ...,. • . P;4 ...: -.'u ico• . 'N..4','-i*.;.i'' ..''.• . J.:, ..i'fr 1,.:t..-'•e'• A' l•":,•• , e "'V„• :........•••-..J.kt." L'' ' -"--.'tj- ,,e/k"„ArtS •'Ci"P?..?:', :,: "..6•,•••,..,:.'",,,' „ ''',""•,,' .,%,r,. I'. . • , . ...}?,•_-.,3f,7-. .,, ,,,,,ra ,•,x, ,cA-„ ';,,:., , O• .,.1t.'''.•"'',1"1"..... rt 0..,,,•Vit '.4' — it : • - ' ..17'•A.'I-"'''4 r• , „._.. + :1{,i/,;•,*&;,;•.0i., . s., , -.1.;?•):::. ., - ' •1 . ',c•py .. .. ..5"--''''"""4 ..! .1',e4'.t.,t,';',t•i'll • ‘ '', '' ' )1',.1. ' '.. .4. ...;.,"1--- trt"Ti J.:A '=w,,,k,,,.,,,,,,,r, , , , . . t.„..,..„ ,...,.,. ..):.)...r./ ... • -.•.: •,. . . •,,,„ , s„,A.:. . ;,..i ••:,, .-'....;;.,..,.. ..-•-' P , fills.',4,',..': .4';',...:*'-:4, •:' ,;". i/ ' ' .,/./.41,,,'' - 71.-i •totil i•, [.•.1.. •• l• '''''" '''''''''• '• ":1".. A-";.,-.4'.'--'-..,'...,. :' ,1,-- , /,',' c,.• " :-,:.--,;.,- 1 c; ; , .•.v. ,.- • .,y,.....„••..-.,. •A - iff )„, , ••.;••it '',..•-..• t• - •• •' 1-1- ',,-•=•-,` Jii -..,-,-, = . - V;i•'•• • '.. • - -' • 411111i14LIF:.--: '' i ' let--, , ,.._„„. ri, t. ' .,,:ak.,,„,,,,..,,,,-, . .:2.,,, ,,,:,,,,2,,•,•!!.....,,,, ,,,,....L. , .,,„ ,,,., „ ,, •,-„, wi. ,'zr,,c,.......'- p- - ' , i .;,.,..,1•Q:, , .?, 4,,,,i, ..„ji-41.Ak. ' CV .1 "PA.. '... ,1•4 id:i,`....A-lajt, sir, ." Ptlirt-,....k 34 f. . • • — re•=- • - if .. ,k, ,t,..i . ii, ii, , 1 , ' ":' ---• " ''' • '`" ' ' ;1.11:11%$4...,,V• ' '''' '-• . ., ----,-''• •--4';-1,1-,IV;;1",.., " ''',,,,,•::Zr.'t- 147'1:''. ' f' -,'(# ,.,' '),..41/8,:•.....1. ..._ .'47:...1. l': A ,2., ;-..,. -.Ai,411.:7,, .', 'le':•:„.t, ', • Cy.. "•.40:i„,,..,.;,- '• ----- .2._ „.--Viiii,•• ,''4•'''')'•-T-''' 4:-.\'': :Ar...1:-.. ..'•••••'''.. / '• • ... 4.3 „,,,'.• k''''f,•-4.''•k•.i.S...!1•';.-..e.,' •-,, 1;.'•''.'`,-1?"-. .11..' -•- 1...f17.' t ' . -?// ,..:. „..;',:igO'v.-. i • -..- .0.•i..• it •\•••11)- 5,'.r •'. ,, ...... • .. . ,... "rt)`; •,•ik , c. .,,. .. H0,4 , , -, .1. f...II „Cl A .. ..''''.)..41 '. • • • s....'474."'.. : ''..',,: Ti-;: . •"Ti J,..-,'-'7.....,;;;wkiiiki)., . ,,, 4.1 , t • I''' ; ; • . •1. ' '1.' ':.. ! ',. E0/ \ ii t.1 ' ii-- 1%.4( ',Ca ' . • ',.. . - .0.ii, 1 ' , ,,-. • . , ° 1,, - 4,!.,,-' *_, #zi,„ ,;I'PAA --&'4,,1 0%.....i. , 1,..;•r,• s":••,.,)1.1.,..„1., I., ,:,,A.:, ;••• ••-„„••••1.‘•:, $ .vvF,. "..,,..--1-- t...;..-.• 'II .—______,— —. i . r?'",,/44. 1, I 'A.,..)./ -7":, . ,/,-g-,'"i,-'• ..,,, ,,,-.,.,..0 „:.. ,,,:‘,...,,,,./: -1".•irgialo - •• ••-•.. .. =.1, ti, 11 . - -,i .--- 4., / 4.4-- ••=ii• . .-':-'• 4.:. ' '.„ i; •,,,, , .1 1.1.. 0,c, ,,. ..-',,...t,v_ ..v.:,./ Vrz- ,7,7.,._... , v. IA- ...'":=Nt....:-.1,,i.,:114,SI • " A.. • ' , ',/,'''.., rffr.:: *.t..,, , , , .,..--..., )..Ei• ,,,,-.. t .1 (,,, . i.A.',,,,,_ / . AO,..,.... -li tre.. VW , ttcy."..40 .\,_ &sewn! -;,',I”., .....,,,y--• ...,,,,....1..•._. 4;)•=2 1,,,:is. -1 i"min M., ; .,./...)d ', ,-,. ."'..-..----_.e.,°.,..,,fir P,.C:avit fre"...-.443„; t..ii72-,,6.'-`-e,1 .. 4.-,,glikl ,-Ir"•••0 i.--i4 14irag111114'% ' • ..2a. ',•!.VPi 1bv-13-O0 1O:41A Bennett Corp 'fb/Ubb3 r.Uc PETERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS mom • October 11, 2000 Mr. Fred Herber • Bennett Development 9 Lake Bellevue Drive,.Suite 100-A Bellevue,WA 98005 RE: Heritage Renton Hill • Detailed Grading Plan • PCE Job No.—Herm-0025 • Dear Fred: As requested, I have reviewed the Detailed Grading Plan forthe Heritage Renton Hill project in reference to balancing the on-site grading. The plan was sent to Earthwork Services for a computer generated quantity • take-off,the results are attached. The following information is provided in the Earthwork Services summary: • • Stripping Quantity 13,307 cy • • Removal of Unsuitable Fill 14,599 cy • Fill 30,426 cy • Cut 45,329 cy Based on the above information there is approximately 28,000 cubic yards of material that will be removed from the site due to stripping and unsuitable material removal. The remainder of the grading.will generate approximately 15,000 cubic yards,ofhaul off. To determine if balancing the site was feasible, Earthwork Services generated quantities for raising the site by 0.5 foot increments until a balance was achieved. From that data it was determined that if the site was raised one foot from the contour elevations proposed on the Detailed Grading Plan,the site would theoretically balance. • If you have any questions or comments regarding these responses or the submittal package please contact me at(425) 827-5874. Sincerely, PETERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. jarttrtkt8 .6V tic,hIF 'FT.�Jennifer A. StE. Project Manager tau' '<_Y ":-:``.° cc: Ryan Fike, Bennett Corporation ».., JAsras 4030 LAKL WASIIIN(:IUN 13Lvo. NE, Sum 200 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGToN 98033 • (425) 827-5874 (425) 822-7216 FAx A'//• /4; NOV-13-2000 10:17 4257096553 96'/. P.02 Nov-13-00 10:42A Bennett Corp 445ivti000s r.vs earth workservices.com llt ' 1 ;t I. •) I 270 Lund Road (360) 533-2007 Cosmopolis,WA 98537 FAX: (360) 533-1618 am/;....�_f. 1NTERNET: http://www.earthworkservices.com October 10, 2000 Earthwork Services Job # 8228 Jennifer Steig Peterson Consulting Engineers 4030 Lake Washington BI. NE, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 RE: Heritage Renton Hill Dear Jennifer, Enclosed please find grid elevation cut/fill graphics and volumes for this project, which was calculated using the average end area method and the following assumptions: 1. A stripping depth of 12"was applied to the existing terrain. 2. A depth of 8" from design elevations to subgrade in the paving. TOTAL RAW VOLUMES IN PLACE (Volumes are in Cubic Yards) Region Area (ft2) Cut Volume Fill Volume Stripping Volume Total Site 432,770 45,329 30,426 13,307 Please call after you have reviewed this information if you have any questions. * Raw volumes are calculated after existing terrain has been stripped, thus creating less cut and more fill of suitable material. Raw volumes have not been adjusted to reflect shrink or swell for compaction and expansion and are volumetric areas only. NOV-13-2000 10:18 4257096553 96% P.03 Nov-13-00 1O:4ZA Bennett Lorp r.u•+ HERITAGE overex=og to des 885.ESW -- Units=Ft-CY Oct 11,2000 10:46:08 Volume Area Volume Comp Ratio Volume Export Change Existing Total Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill -Import Per.1 FT PAVING 213,967 152,766 61,201 11,146 4,765 1.00 1.00 11.146 4,765 6,381 792 Regions Total 213,967 152,766 61,201 11,146 4,765 11,146 4,765 6,381 792 SITE GRADING 218,803 102,001 116,802 34,183 25,661 1.00 1.00 34,183 25,661 8,522 811 Job Total 432,770 254,767 178,003 45,329 30,426 , 45,329 30,426 14,903 1,603 Strip Qtys Depth Length Area Volume y01?7 z 33,$7 41 t-.S STRIPPING 1.000 3,639 359,300 13,307 3(cti`{%' 37,601 1 Sect Qtys Depth Length Area Volume • PAVING 0.667 3,875 213,967 5,283 . • NOV-13-2000 10:18 4257096553 96% P.04 Nov-13-00 1O:4eA Bennett Lorp �+c�i0yo��3 r .ve 4 HERITAGE RENTON HILL oe 883.ESW Units = Ft-CY Oct 11,2000 10:46:31 Volume Area Volume Comp Ratio Volume Export Change Existing Total Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill -Import Per.1 FT overexcavation 74,615 73,585 1,030 14,599 15 1.00 1.00 14,599 15 14,584 276 Strip Qtys Depth Length Area Volume NONE Total 0 0 • Sect Qtys • Depth Length Area Volume NONE Total 0 0 5132ai . cv � 30, c/zG /-=-/ cc l ) Cl)! NOV-13-2000 10:19 4257096553 96% P.05 There are two crest vertical curves on Renton Ave. that do not meet City, County or State requirements for vertical curve design length. The primary reason for minimum vertical curve design standards is to provide safe sight distance so that moving cars can see far enough ahead to avoid other cars and pedestrians that might be in their lane. These to areas do not miss sight distance standards by a little, they miss it by a lot. To compound the problem the road is sub-standard in width by the Cities current standards and parking is allowed on one side. Two full size vehicles cannot pass if cars are parked on the east side of the road. Does the traffic study supplied by the Bennett address this and what mitigation measures are proposed. If not then we would like a continuance for Bennett and City staff to address the issue and propose mitigation at these critical areas. 7'a , . Coe / CI 6‘. ‘1/ ) zdi ;0,4)1\V "\ (V\\P IA di( 7ivoV � P o e �J ‹rd, .1\C\I 6( (9 19 &`" • �' ft CITY' -►F RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM • To: r er Councilmembers From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: March 18, 2002 Subject: Appeal of Heritage Renton Hill : • I have spoken with many:of you about,the result of the hearing-on the appeal of the.City Council's approval of the plat:of Heritage.Renton.Hill; I'.have:waited to formally contact you about the decision until the attorneys involved had agreed on the form of a final order. The hearing was originally scheduled Ion Monday:March..4'h but was continued until March 5th. The case was argued before Judge Michael Ieavvey.at=the.Regional.Justice Center. After hearing the arguments of the parties and reading the'brief an l'rev ewing the record, Judge Heavey decided - that the record provided substantial evidence to sipport the City Counci 's decision to approve the plat of the Heritage Renton Hill:property. He therefore`dismissed the petition. The Renton Hill community has thirty day ',after the entry of the,order to appeal to the Court of Appeals. If there is no appeal, then the decision.is final and:the developer.can proceed to plat this property. If you have any follow up questions, please let me know. • Lawrence J. arren LJW:tmj Co: Jay Covington T10.34:09 • • • • • • Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE : This paper contains50%recycledmaterial,30%postconsumer September 24,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 332 Citizen Comment: Wiemann— Correspondence was read from W.F. Wiemann, 2116 Edmonds Ave. NE, Fireworks Ban Renton,98056,endorsing a ban on fireworks in Renton due to noise and fire hazards from illegal fireworks. Citizen Comment: Browne— Correspondence was read from Kim Browne,President of the Kennydale Kennydale Neighborhood Neighborhood Association, 1211 N. 28th Pl.,Renton, 98056, thanking the city Picnic for making their neighborhood picnic possible in August through the Neighborhood Program Picnic Fund. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE FIREWORKS-RELATED CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Larson— Correspondence was read from Ruth Larson,representative of the Renton Hill Heritage Hill Renton Plat Community Association,714 High Ave. S.,Renton, 98055,requesting Reconsideration Request reconsideration of Council's action on 9/10/2001 approving the Heritage A- _ O' Renton Hill preliminary plat. Also read was a letter written by City Clerk Marilyn Petersen to Ms.Larson clarifying the fact that, according to parliamentary procedure,filing of a motion to reconsider would have been required by 9/17/2001 by a member who voted with the prevailing side. Citizen Comment: Derham— Correspondence was read from Richard A. Derham, Redistricting Commission, Redistricting Commission 524 W. Comstock, Seattle, 98119, stating his intention to adopt Mayor Plans Tanner's proposal of limiting Renton to three Washington State legislative districts,the 11th,41st&47t. Mr.Derham's letter also stated that the Commission will hold a public hearing at North Seattle Community College on October 5th at 7:00 p.m.,plus they will be receiving public comment on the four proposed redistricting plans through the end of October. OLD BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 196572— 197020, and one wire transfer totaling Finance: Vouchers $1,796,078.00; and 539 direct deposits,payroll vouchers 33999—34271, and one wire transfer, totaling$1,624,650.06. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution#3529 A resolution was read appointing the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk as Legal: City Clerk&Deputy agents to receive claims for damages made under Chapter 4.96 RCW. MOVED City Clerk as Agents for BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL Receiving Claims For ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Damages NEW BUSINESS Council President Clawson reported that the Washington State Department of WSDOT: I-405 Corridor Transportation(WSDOT)has announced that the public comment period for Program&Draft EIS the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) on the I-405 Corridor Program has been extended from 10/9/2001 to 10/24/2001. Mr. Clawson encouraged the public to review the DEIS at public libraries or on the web page, www.wsdot.wa.gov/I-405, and to make comments and suggestions for improving mobility and reducing traffic congestion in the Renton/I-405 corridor. Additionally, Mr. Clawson stated that, along with the I-405/SR 167 Flyover Ramp Ceremony on 9/27/2001 at 9:30 a.m. at the Holiday Inn Select, there will be an open forum on the I-405 Corridor Program and the public is invited to attend. CITY OF RENTON SEP 19 2001 September 19, 2001 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE To: City of Renton Subject: Motion of Reconsideration Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Case: Heritage Renton Hill Plat Resolution: #3526 WHEREAS, the City Council agreed that the Renton Ave. So. and So. 7th Ave. Intersection should be addressed regarding safety issues but did not make a definitive Motion to do so: and WHEREAS, the City Council determined sidewalks and other features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and they are not, nor were sidewalks addressed in the hearing Examiners file; and WHEREAS, the vote was to be made based solely on the hearing Records, and the tying vote was made by the Mayor without a statement Indicating thorough knowledge of the file. The Renton Hill Community Association files this Motion of Reconsideration. uth Larson, Representative •, -u a CITX - _)F RENTON ,LL City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen September 20,2001 Ruth Larson,Representative Renton Hill Community Association 714 High Avenue S. Renton,WA 98055 ;Re: Letter requesting reconsideration of Council decision on Heritage Renton Hill Plat;PP-00-053 .Dear Ms. Larson: I am responding to the referenced letter,received by the City Clerk Division on September 19, 2001, at the request of Jay Covington, CAO. The letter requests reconsideration of the Council's action on September 10,2001,to approve the HeritagefRRritdn'Hillspreliminary plat by a tie vote with the Mayor casting the deciding vote. In accordance"wth'Council policiesiRenton City Council meetings are governed by Robert's Rules of Ordei`on parliamentary procedure. According to Roberts New Rules of Order, 10th edition,reconsideration enables a majority in an:assembly;:within.a limited time and without notice,to bring back fors`further consideration a motion which has already been voted on. The. purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit.correctionof;hasty,ill-advised, or erroneous action,or to take into account added information or a changed,situation that has developed since the taking of the vote. ;' :,. The motion to reconsider has the following- hicqne characteristics: The motion can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. Secondly,the motion to:reconsider is subject to time limits, and,in the case of City Council•:meetings,must.be made either during the same meeting at which the original motion was made°or at the next succeeding meeting. Since.the Council's action on the motion to approve the plat took place on September 10, 2001, a motion to reconsider would have been required at the next regular meeting;or September 17,2001,by a member who voted with the prevailing side. Copies of your letter have been forwarded to Mayor Tanner and members of the City Council.for review. If I can provide additional clarification of this matter,please feel free to contact me at 430- 6502. Sincerely, , , I••,� Marilyn 47 ' rsen City Clerk cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Members,Renton City Council .,; .•,.roux Larry Warren,City Attorney Ate`~ zw Jay Covington, CAO 19 2 0 : 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510/FAX(425) 430-6516 ` a ; w — - • - — P September 10,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 306 • The reviewing official shall determine the level of visual and acoustical screening for these facilities. • An administrative conditional use permit be required. In conclusion,Ms. Lind said that the recommendation is to amend several sections of the City Code relating to storage,development standards and definitions. Audience comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See page 311 for ordinance.) APPEAL Council President Clawson presented a report regarding the Heritage Renton Committee of the Whole Hill preliminary plat appeal(PP-00-053 &AAD-00-149). The Committee of Appeal: Heritage Renton Hill, the Whole recommended that the Heritage Renton Hill preliminary plat be Renton Hill Community Assoc denied. Although several Councilmembers expressed personal knowledge (PP-00-053 &AAD-00-149) concerning the traffic situation on Renton Hill,that testimony cannot,by rule, be considered. Therefore, the Council Committee has limited its recommendation to the record before the Hearing Examiner. In support of its recommendation,the Committee of the Whole recommended that the full Council adopt the following changes to the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation dated January 25,2001. The last sentence of conclusion number one should be modified to read "reducing the density of this plat to fifty lots will not adequately reduce the untoward impacts on the existing residents." The Committee of the Whole recommended that Council make the following additional conclusions: • FINDING NUMBER 15—The plat as proposed would not further public safety. The narrow streets combined with permitted on street parking reduce several of the streets on Renton Hill to one-way streets. Adding twenty-five percent more traffic to this already unacceptable situation will create a safety hazard. • FINDING NUMBER 16—The intersection of S. 7th St. and Renton Ave. S. already presents a dangerous situation. Visibility at that intersection is poor and in some instances nonexistent. Adding an additional twenty-five percent of traffic to that intersection creates an unwarranted safety problem. • FINDING NUMBER 17—The exit from this plat is unusual. The plat exit is only 110 feet from the intersection of S. 7th Ct. with Beacon Way SE. Normally, 150 feet of distance is necessary. Even though the Transportation Division found this intersection adequate, the fact that the intersection is now a five-way intersection that would, with the addition of the exit road from this plat, become, in essence, a six-way intersection creates an unacceptably dangerous intersection. The Committee of the Whole recommended that the Hearing Examiner's conclusion number 15 be renumbered 17 and be modified to read "in conclusion the proposed preliminary plat should be denied by the City Council." The Committee of the Whole recommended that the recommendation be changed to read "the City Council should deny the preliminary plat." September 10,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 307 MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilman Parker stated that he is against the committee report and upholds the recommendation of the hearing examiner for the following reasons: • The transportation engineer and the City's transportation staff have determined that there is adequate street capacity with the development in place. • He can find no error in judgment with the hearing examiner's recommendations. • If the plat is denied, the City will be put in a position to be sued in Superior Court; the City cannot prevail, and will be liable for damages. Mr. Parker said that although he is sympathetic with the Renton Hill residents, he is equally sympathetic with citizens who live in other areas of Renton and are also affected by traffic problems. Council President Clawson agreed with Councilman Parker and stated that he is against denying the preliminary plat. He expressed concern about defending the denial of the plat in Superior Court, and emphasized that he represents all Renton residents,not just a single neighborhood, and cannot subject the City to a lawsuit that may cost well over$100,000 in attorney's fees. Councilman Corman also expressed his concerns regarding the committee report, saying that he spent many hours looking through the record trying to find an error that would allow the City to deny the plat. He stated that the City is not in a position to stop this, and denying the plat would only delay the process; therefore, he upholds the decision of the hearing examiner. *MOTION FAILED. (Mayor Tanner voted "no" to break the tie vote.) MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL OF THE HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ADOPT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER.* Councilman Corman asked if there was any procedural way to have a safety study performed on intersections that will be affected by this development, even if the City cannot require the developer to make outside improvements. Councilman Parker added that it would be appropriate to look into this issue to see what could be done in the normal course of business. Council President Clawson and Councilman Corman discussed the possibility of amending the motion to require the developer to conduct a study of the traffic issues. Mayor Tanner pointed out that the Council can always address the improvements to the intersection in the future. Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler stated for the record that all neighborhoods in the City are not exactly the same. They have unique characteristics, some more than others. In this instance, the Renton Hill neighborhood is on a very steep hill and has some constraints due to the topography and the location of the houses which are very close to the street. Pointing out that improvements to the neighborhood have been considered and conducted in the past,Ms. Keolker- Wheeler said that more than likely those improvements have already be done. September 10,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 308 For the record,Council President Clawson acknowledged that there are visibility problems at the intersection of S. 7th St. and Renton Ave. S. and recommended that City funds be expended to fix the problem. *MOTION CARRIED TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND APPROVE THE HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT. (Mayor Tanner voted "aye" to break the tie vote.) MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT.* Resolution#3526 A resolution was read approving the Heritage Renton Hill preliminary plat Appeal: Heritage Renton Hill, located southeast of the intersection of Beacon Way S. with SE 7th Ct.,Jones Renton Hill Community Assoc Ave. S., and S. 7th St on Renton Hill. File No. PP-00-053 and AAD-00-149. (PP-00-053 &AAD-00-149) *MOTION CARRIED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. (Mayor Tanner voted "aye" to break the tie vote.) ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2001 and beyond. Items noted included: * WSDOT awarded the construction contract for the I-405/SR-167 flyover ramp project to Max J. Kuney from Spokane and construction began on September 4th. * A ribbon cutting ceremony to celebrate the completion of the downtown transit center located north of S. 3rd St., between Burnett Ave. S. and Logan Ave. S., will be held on Saturday, September 15th at 10:00 a.m. * The Renton Senior Activity Center will be closed September 10th through 14th for annual maintenance and repairs. AUDIENCE COMMENT David Chesnes, 1105 N. 29th St.,Renton, 98056,reported that he received a Citizen Comment: Chesnes— parking ticket in June for parking in the wrong direction on his street. A Directional Parking Violations Renton resident for 23 years,Mr. Chesnes commented that never before has this violation been enforced in his area. He said he knows that there is a reason for the law and understands its application to arterials and busy streets,but not to residential streets. Mr. Chesnes recommended that the law be amended. On another subject, Mr. Chesnes expressed his concerns regarding the lack of parking at Gene Coulon Park. Citizen Comment: Buss— Christopher Buss, 362 Earlington Ave. SW,Renton, 98055, commented on Directional Parking Violations directional parking violations, saying that the issue entails not only the directional parking law but the traffic controller's enforcement of the law. Mr. Buss stated that,compared to surrounding areas,Renton's issuance of parking infraction citations is high. He questioned the City's inconsistent and unfriendly enforcement of the violations and asked Council to amend the law. Citizen Comment: Pillo— Ben Pillo, 860 Chelan Ave. NE,Renton, 98059, spoke in support of the Johnson Annexation,Jericho Johnson Annexation and relayed problems he has had with King County Ave NE,NE 6th&NE 9th Sts relating to storm water drainage issues. Citizen Comment: Shelton— Ida Shelton, 2020 Grant Ave. S.,A-103,Renton, 98055, complained about Neighbor Noise Disturbances vibrating noises emanating from a neighbor's apartment which has been occurring since 1991. Ms. Shelton said she is unable to sleep and experiences -le- Xail P PeM P AEPROVO)BY CITY COUNCIL Date y-/ o _o / (Pii- PAC,/lei) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT (September 10, 2001) Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat Appeal • (File LUA-00=053, PP, ECF and LUA-00-149,AAD) (Referred by Council to Planning and Development Committee on February 12, 2001. Referred in Part to Committee of the Whole on August 6, 2001) The Committee of the Whole recommends to the full Council that the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat be denied. Although several Councilmembers,;expressedpersonal`knowledge concerning the traffic situation on Renton Hill, thatttestimony cannot,by rule,be considered. Therefore, the Council Committee has limited'ts recommendation.to the record before the Hearing Examiner. In support of its recommendation, the Committee 011ie Whole recommends that the full Council adopt the following changes to the Heanng Examiner's report and recommendation dated;January 25,2001?: '' '" ,' 1,1 i • The last sentence,of conclusion number one=should`be,modified to read"reducing the density of this'plat tto.f ftylots will not adequately reduce the untoward impacts on the existing resideri` q" ` The Committee of the Whole would.recomriend.the Council make the following additional conclusions: FINDING NUMBER 15. The plat as proposed would not further public safety. The narrow streets combined with permitted on street parking reduce several of the streets on Renton Hill to one-way streets. Adding twenty-five percent more • traffic to this already unacceptable situation will create a safety hazard. FINDING NUMBER 16. The intersection of South 7th and Renton Avenue South already presents a dangerous situation. Visibility at that intersection is poor and in some instances nonexistent. Adding an additional twenty-five percent of traffic to that intersection creates an unwarranted safety problem. FINDING NUMBER 17. The exit from this plat is unusual. The plat exit is only 110 feet from the intersection of South 7th Court with Beacon Way Southeast. Normally, 150 feet of distance is necessary. Even though the Transportation y Committee of the Whole Committee Report Page 2 Division found this intersection adequate, the fact that the intersection is now a five-way intersection that would,with the addition of the exit road from this plat, become, in essence, a six-way intersection creates an unacceptably dangerous intersection. The Committee of the Whole recommends that the Hearing Examiner's conclusion number 15 be renumbered 17 and be modified to read"in conclusion the proposed preliminary plat should be denied by the City Council". The Committee of the Whole recommends that the recommendation be changed to read "the City Council should deny the preliminary plat". . .: ;.,.. Dan Clawson,Council Presidents b'; Y ;• . • C: La////rry Warren - . ''::, •:_ '< / U y y ^,i•Z• x i .7..s '\.• fit:;.., a � e`1'J(5 (( ,► CIT OF RENTON :.11 � City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen September 12, 2001 Ruth Larson,President Renton Hill Community Association 714 High Avenue S. Renton,WA 98055 Re: Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat Appeal; File No. AAD-00-149; LUA-00-053 Dear Ms. Larson: At the regular Council meetingof September 10, 2001, the Renton City Council denied the referenced appeal and adopted the recommendation of the hearing examiner to approve the referenced preliminary plat. A copy of the adopting resolution is enclosed for your records. If I can provide additional information, please feel free to,contact me. Sincerely, Marilyn . rsen City Clerk cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Dan Clawson Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services Division Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner 1901 2001 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 /FAX (425) 430-6516 cik This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer ( �y 4LID CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3 5 2 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT (HERITAGE RENTON HILLS, FILE NO. LUA-00-053PP,ECF,AND LUA-00-149,AAD). WHEREAS, an application for approval of a preliminary plat for a subdivision of a certain tract of land located within the City of Renton, has heretofore been duly recommended for approval by the Renton Hearing Examiner; and WHEREAS, that recommendation for approval of the preliminary plat was appealed to the Renton City Council, as was the environmental determinations of the Environmental Review Committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its regular meeting of August 6th, 2001, affirmed the Examiner's decisions concerning the environmental issues and referred certain road and safety issues to the Committee of the Whole; and WHEREAS, the Committee of the Whole, by report dated September 10, 2001, recommended denial of the plat, but that recommendation failed to achieve a majority vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by motion on September 10, 2001, voted to approve the preliminary plat, with the Council splitting 3-3 on that proposition, with the Mayor casting the deciding vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the preliminary plat, as proposed, provides appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets, or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, portable water supplies, sanitary waste, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3526 including sidewalks and other features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that.the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The preliminary plat heretofore submitted and recommended for approval by the Hearing Examiner, be and the same is hereby approved as such preliminary plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton and subject to the findings, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner dated January 25, 2001. SECTION III. If the preliminary plat improvements are installed as approved by this Resolution, and in accordance with the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, the Council shall then and thereafter adopt a resolution approving the final plat. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 10th day of September , 2001. Marilyn J. et rs n, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 10th •day of September , 2001. Je anner,Mayor 2 RESOLUTION NO, 35 26 Approved as form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.870:9/6/O 1:ma 3 SEC. 20, TWP. 23 N., ROE. 5 E., W.M. ETERSON !1EP! "! AE ONSULTIN u .. .;I '..ilt.; RE N T®111 II I 1,.,L RPaar WAY 4Bly030 Lake W 98033 s s Blvd.N.E.,Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033 S 2n6 ST '.,1 Tel(425)827-5874 _ �_ \ I 1 s J.6 sr ' Fax(425)822-72(6 • 'g SIN Sr MENIONMINIMIIIIMIN :�1 Ss'SU ��\ �>i\ \\�\ \�--L �\\\�� • I SITE • 'II• i : I ,--�1 �' I �`• 3 ,DY wA '��, v N� � e_ _ 4. �TTM BIT. - SrL �� :1� '© rtl �•�V1� l 51p1YwA7EN 61 J7 JI � J \---11.11":0 \ JRACT I SW I6M ARNOW PARK I I _I I-- = t� - JJ sr B 1�' 0 -T- • cc sj 0 200' 'I I--1-I---I i \ v$• \ VICINITY MAP: Q i I ��I I \ RaoAnicrie 2613 , NOT TO SCALE • ill �} • I 1--_I__J .\'-,- =2L�'- ' (• GENERAL NOTES: t� • 1 I I I \\� �• �L. i® 1 - 1 I�- ORNEa: ;�Jp4 JCNoa tamer W • I NUMBER DELTA RADIUS LENGTH L/S 7R.44 "; -1 \�� 25 C_ C- RENEW 1ASHINDT0N 96033 Cl 15428'40" 25.00' 58.68' l C • C2 2827'12" 125.00' 62.08' I \ ' 1? -1 DEMOPER: BENNETT DEVELOPMENT H l 1 1 \'= IIEII I-- 9 LAKE BELLEVUE Fi • 11-- SUITE TOO A 0 I j I I \ -'�v'n[ �/� BEiLENA6 WASNWGf01J 96D03 L/S DUCT " /: (423)709-6508 ill �,� gY�1pg04 \l CONTACT:RYAN RKE p II _ I_r_-� 1 7` `r\\56J e7JGNEER• PETERSLW CU/SILTTNe ENCWFIRS m` {� \`a�VV 40.30 LAKE WA9&JGTON Btw ML • I_ 7- 1 l= ,"' `` /\ \\ SUITE WAsreNGTON MAP W r \ \r\ �, (425)827-3874 e -�--� ..- \ \ �� Comm.ENNIFER SIVA P.G N KEY MAP sURTEYC3 MEAD OX�NASSOCIATES SCALE IL200' 1/OODINNLLL WASHINGTLN 96072 (425)466-1252 CONTACT:EDWARO ANDERSLN,P.L.S. BENCHMARKS/DATUM: TOTAL AREA(9/) 7035 ACRES(GROSS) o k BENCHMARKS CITY OF RENTON µ13-N1/1 CON.SEC.20-2J-3 E:or AREA FLOW. 2.04 ACRES 4 a a a a a a a a< CASED 4'114'CONC MON KOH 11/2'BRASS DISC&'XI 80'E 2 THE NIX OF S 7TH ST.t JONES AT£.S. NET AREA 621 ACRES ELEVATION.241.34' 0TY OF RENTON µ18 TOTAL LOTS 57 RESIDENTIAL LOTS .L 57110 IHMITEINCEr"."- CASED CONG MON KITH 1/I'BRASS RN,IVE S.OF ME WTX OF MAX.ALLOWABLE DENSITY: 6.00 W/AWRE S.7TH SD N RENTLN AK DESIDNF71! 4 STEM ELEVATION.J05.60' PROPOSED OENRTI; 666 W/ACRE CAM a D0- DATUM: NATO 64(art OF RENTON) 20NIND R-6,URBAN RESIOENDAL CHECIUM S SIDO DATE, 4/10/00 • PROPOSED USD SNGLE--FAMILY.DETACHED (US HAKE.P/1MRI3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXISTING USD SINGLE-FAMILY.DETACHEDlillinliMIMMIENIIN THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST WARIER C•IHE NORTHWEST WARIER Of THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY" nap SURIEYE°BY MEAD GWAN I ASSOCIATES WARIER Of SECTION 24 TOMNSNIP 22 NORM RANGE 5 EAST,WM.IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTO, • DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO^OCRAPHII nap SURLE)LD BY MEAD 1WAN!ASSOCIATES COUIENCINO AT THE NORD/REST CORNER OF SAID SIBD OININSON,SAID PT BEING THE TRUE POINT ilB OF BEOMONC. THENCE SOUTH 6956J7'EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LIMITS OF SAID SUBOINSON UTILITIES/PURVEYORS: R.9 A DISTANCE OF 929.67 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SMITHSLN; THENCE SOUTH Z� y OI13'JB'NEST ALONG THE EASTERLY triers ce sea SUBONSMN A DISTANCE OF 616 FEE MT:THENCE SOUTH 7r1T5'12'NEST A DISTANCE OF109.1E FUT TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY SEMER/WAIE1C OM OFRENTCN • ... j��'N'� MARGIN OF DIE OF 07Y SEATTLE'S CEDAR RIVER PIPELINE RICIT ON WAY;THENCE NORTH 44• .i 20'13'PEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE O.114620 FEET TO A POINT ON THE STORM DRAINAGE: CITY OF RENTON WESTERLY UEWTS ON SAID S GOO4SKN,• THENCE NORTH 01V520'EAST ALONG SAID MESTLRLY LIMITS t('•, r `n. A DISTANCE O'J514 LEFT TO THE TRUE PORT O'BEGINNING GAS/PONES: PUGYCT SOUND a ENERGY A.e., ,��. `. LOT AREA'S(LISTED IN SWARE FEET) TELEPHOVE. US HEST `9j0HAL ' 7 I. 6990 la 5.462 25. 4.730 J7 3.527 49. 4,750 CABLE: AT&T 1 EMPIRES.9/9/00 2. SAS M. 4,963• 26. 4,730 36 5.500 50. 4,749 FIRE DISTRICD CITY O'RENTON STANG'NOT VALID .1 4,673 16 6755 27. 1.730 J9. 3500 51. 5623 UNIL 451OTIFDANDDATED 4. 4.623 16. 4.730 26 4750 4a J500 52. 566T SCHOOL DISTRICT: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT µ0T - 5. 4.304 77. 6.090 29. 4,730 41. 5500 52. 4.730MIIIMMIIMEIMINIIIIMEMEN 6. 6337 la 7.331 30. 4,754 42. 5500 55. 4.750 HERM-00�. 7 5,443 0, 4318 J2 4,946 44. 3,500 56. 4721 "")433ER 8. 4,750 2a 601E J. 4,91E 45. 4,730 36. 6,66I 8. I,730 21. 6000 JJ 6,I2/ I6 1,730 37, 6,660 IA 4.750 22. 51000 24. 5549 46 4,730 SIZErNUN= H. 1.730 2J 4.751 J3. 6.905 47, 4730 11. 5.625 2I. 4.75025. 7,10E 45. 4,750 _ DE . .„. — .0 • • Fai m7 ______---__ , -- .F.E.S, OLUTION.:::. 526 ' -Fr.) , •. •CD ' _ .. '--- • 1 . 94.m.• . - N , CUR • Ec?Oi . R- • _____ c.,. - - 1\1-... . • _...-----..,..._ -----------, -----C6--, . : in .- . \ c72/;• le 4,R C - ,.. •__,L= 71— . . CD " N'•-., tp.. . /I • . . ...._ Can 11 . =17 ›.., I f-T.J •\___: • • _ ._ . . ..... . , ...... - . CDT) ' •2it -03- _c63-_ •(\en.1 RC-..- . : . - .. , _ci ii-• \ \ 0 ; . .._, • r . -$.,,---•cr/- 1\--\ •- ' . . . - • . CDR - co.-: • -• ,;‘. - . ., 1 1 • - 1() --?"-lE ._T- - N • - - - - - ----. RCCP) cp . -te- -,T op.-_-_ •-• 03 . ., . . -1. • _;..._ . ,.:_._; • • . • . . i •--- -- 1- --- - ••• '.1 CO ( .,. . , 2. • r: --- -— --c41.-.•-co' \ lire -, '. i 1 •. •. "..4 • . • . RC .• , . • • - • • i 1 ;'R. ''----8. . _ . - .;• 1 + r'. . _I 1 - • • • ---abiaa-i's - -. - . • -- • • • Cr3. I" 1 . —I-J-0)1 __J--9?-- PAL_ \ . R- = 8t1417 ,,o • • • . Ii• 9.• .., , . „_...„ _1 cr), si-r -. 1 . 7::::::- • l' fc —1-6- -lig --- --‘14-C/D - : -1--U-D. - 'VNR-8 . __ ._ .___ ___ • --A, , 0&,_ . 1 i • _i__ ›. ____ . • ___..1 -9 h -c4-- --fc —,--‹r _.$ • -.4_, ; _••=7- -71 „c-cric0 \01 • - 1 1 g .i_ I_I._ i 0---57-. v• v..— I )\.- 1 i • \\,-1,...-2---- ________.-------- .t.j.. . .___. _ , ,:-. _"•%-\-K \ , --- -._ .. . . „ -, , „.--- ---,. ..\\_:•..,---- __ „-- . .......... - __E._ _T--- - ..,1 ....,-,--___,,, --___.v. ••__ : ......__ ..... -----:„.,.. .-- --, - --- ____,_:_..-- ..,...,_ ...__ -----____ ________ \ r..---, • \ • --..•• ... R 7 8 ._........• . . ,. . . _____ ._ _.. . . . . 1 . . \. , ........-- • ci • ._ . • \ _ .. a) ......---___.--• _ % i .. >,• --• _.--- - \ • 7.5 ..- ..„.....--- I . - .. 1.-. -. .- .--_ ---- --.-. .- .-i I . • . i 0 I -.----- ON MI - R8 ..V • i -------- JR. -I ---1--" __. ---_-r- - ----- --- ---- " --------- -L---------------T.—. ,,. .. . ..:. ,......_--\ / . 4> •• _.......-- / _IF,' Tv-orca. RiTtri P-1 / . . - • Z• orlitl c"-- HAT T _ , _"r_ HERITAGE RENTON HILL `A/I/D1 r-.o' ana CITY OF ^.�TIEC -I� RENTO'Dd. . NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP ^� I IP Oh...tom — AIS Pbn /Puloe Me - A Roc Gvyp I�Benmer"ro P.L AOn, RD. RM90R al APPR 0-s,d x 3 RESOLUTION NO. 3526 `\``\\ '-1 \\ ` rT r -r ITT FT --i- IIIIIII III e I- r--,-` ��4241 4 -f-I I I I�� i `l �[ •r-'y �� _1__lii_i_ %v. J- 11J LLLL1111J1J • / "— MAW AVE �� 1` 1 ��/ °"b/ I SA ADI L. // '- / / -_j-------rrL- YRE AYE, • / / { I r -I--1 r—rrrTT-r T�- / / N 1 I I 1 rl I I I 1 1 1 I 11'•rrTTTTTTI-r11, ' L_L111111JJ•11IIIIII11I / / I I III 'i .rrrr1TT-•T-1-1R I-1--1-tlt-t-t-1-1= �1 I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I-�a. / a°, / r ,�, J4L_.JJJ.L1_J LLL1111Jr1JJ LLL11111J1J$ / '` �----- cEOAR AYE / a / rr�T-r�-r-I r I r-rr--r-r-ram-r 1-T�-r rT��r 1�-r�-r/ , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 Fr 11 1 1 1 1 1 IIII III I I I I I v / o' / I I I I I I I I I I I' I 11=,. 1 1 I I I I I 111 1 1 11 11 I 1�i , / / I H 41�—F {—--{—I—I }.1 L 1--1—{--1--1--1—i--11-F+-1-1J 1 1 1 Y,r+` f / ' / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I I 1;% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1- 1 y,+''•ffi / / I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 i ,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J�►.„1:1 111 / A--I J L1_1RE1_1-_J-_J, LJ_Lg...r.LJ_1J_1_L1.111—J—� ,� _REMDM AYE / / I r-I-T-7-1 r-TT-7-r-1-171' rT,. rYrow_AYE�_r-7 •r7_rrrr- / / 1 I I F--I I I I I I I IIII I I Imo« I I 1 1 1 I I L� 1/ / Ixry I 1 1 / �'��II I 1111 / / ° gJ 1 1 LJ 11 1 LJJJ 11 1--L-J -*� / / TT�_1 I I r 11 I _ I I _ rr1-rnl I-- 7 ,� I I I I H I I I /( r__ _rl 111_J _-Ina L LiJ_I J__J` L_LL_Lw'.-_LL_L1./J� C�<1 I I I I I III I I 1 a GRANT APE• �(� 1�L4- 11J_111t_.1 r--T--T—ram -r- ›- I la, . I I 11. � i I I 1 4--II`rE_-.1HMI )'�-C`\\\,>� I I �'r-T--T-1=•13LLL_L 11_LLJ_J L-_111LLW ,�`,`\�\\y` ' 1 I q I I I I`I I I I I I I I 11.E -�I 11 y ,�\\\�\\\\J'�i/ r 1 1111 L1_l__1__.-1 LJ_LJ-1_L1_LJ: L_1LLly , t_LiL1 / jI I I I-I-7 I LJ I I I I N-j 1 1 1 1 I, I -1 /r `I I r IYEI 11 LJ_1J_J J_J I I I I I 1 1 11 I *.c I_J 1 1 1 1 p 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1-rrrll-T-1-1-r1 I ='¢. 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I IIII I I I I I J',xf-, �� L--1 I L__J \ I t LJ_1_L1_L1_LLLL1_LJ_1_Li 1� 'l \1I I I I I \ 1 f JpVEAAY.a j .} —Y— 1'--1--J J \ \ - -11 �' / / \ \ s_ t� • `_-•1 I \ \ I \ is .P4t1 ( g �4 _ / / \ ; \ P i 'o ' �!►-- ---- 7 % \ \ ; \\ �,''P4p�°° a - / / \ ' per © - / / / \ I • \ ' �� CI" / / / \ I , /Tao ©© �j/ / ' / \\ V k \ i BH Rani E— /i / ° �.e/ \, BA Li \ A / 1 \ \\ \\ / ASS`!�® ©� ./%i 1 i,�i y/'Al110A49:10%kC M0:1M' i 1 /t,/ \ \ / ,. ,, �-rrrm-r-7 / I ,'/ / \/ / I \\--,,r 7 1.-J C- / �/ PtTAcE CAt• %/X' \ - \ /7.�i��\ ��\ i�T � -/ / / / \ ' \ 'p ��Cam•\ ^rr- c,1��� I • / /� - �-/ .,� � on �� `\ `v_ ± � 4t / / /-�ij j \ // / / /--__ /►*/ \ \ \r- -1\J1-,J ' / / I l X- 1 'I /.#/ I \ \\-� (/y<;r /I / 7 / `-� / .... \ \ \ 1 1- / / , / / / 2.,,t \\ \ \ \`�J,C� i �� / / FP/� / �i 0 ' \; \\ \ \�-X+ \ I 1 /11 % / / •/ I / 1 r•-� / ' x^! /' \ \ \ 1u I �IL1 1 I I I I L c J /� %/ / , ` \ vJ_L_L L--- - - - I 1- .-. -/ /- .�..- - — \\ ,;\ ' \ \\ \ 1 ; 1 I I = // / • I \ `I /\ \ ZX \ \ =\ j • \ _ \�� \ \ \ I.R \ \ I /----- T \ \ I It: 1-/--? ,-1,,,,,., 1< \\ \S.o\ \ \ \ ___ ---+e r-Vic- \:I I 4\\1-,�\ \ \ \L-- I- �r 1' 1 \`B\\ 1 _ -=r r ♦ v i J. \'\\\ \ \ I `ter --I--1 -\s\\ \\l I \ -_--r--- 1 -L- \'\\ \ August 13,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 275 The granting of these permanent easements will require the same public liability and property damage insurance,and annual payment of fees as are now required for temporary use of the right-of-way. The City Attorney shall be directed to prepare an ordinance adopting these amendments to the City Code for excess right-of-way use. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for ordinance.) ORDINANCES AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the RESOLUTIONS meeting of 8/20/2001 for second and final reading: Rezone: Springbrook An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of 52.31 acres Watershed,P-1 to RC,Talbot located at 5750 Talbot Rd. S. from P-1 (Public Use)to RC(Resource Rd S (R-01-061) Conservation)with a P-suffix designation(Springbrook Watershed Rezone; File No.R-01-061). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 8/20/2001. CARRIED. Planning:Right-of-Way Use An ordinance was read amending Section 9-2-1 through 9-2-5 and Section 9-2-7 Amendments of Chapter 2,Excess Right-of-Way Use, of Title IX(Public Ways and Property) of City Code by authorizing temporary and permanent use of portions of a right-of-way that are below grade or involve air rights. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 8/20/2001. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#4909 An ordinance was read adopting the 2001 amendments to the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan: 2001 Comprehensive Plan,maps and data in conjunction therewith. MOVED BY Amendments KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4910 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of 7.41 acres located Rezone: Boeing CPA#00-M-I, at N. 8th St.,Park Ave.N. and Garden Ave.N. from CO(Commercial Office) N 8th St,CO to IH(R-99-175) to EH(Industrial-Heavy); Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,CPA 00-M-1; File No. R-99-175. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES., CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS At the request of Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler,,City Attorney Larry Warren Appeal: Heritage Renton Hill, explained that Council cannot accept new evidence or testimony when Renton Hill Community discussing the Heritage Renton Hill site plan review at the next Monday's Association(PP-00-053 & Committee of the Whole meeting. The Council is acting as a quasi-judicial AAD-00-149) body,and is limited to reviewing material already on record. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:36 p.m. MARIL J. TERSEN,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann August 13,2001 August 6,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 263 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE An electronic letter was read from Brian Swenson, 225 Lind Ave. SW,Renton, Citizen Comment: Swenson— 98055,regarding the enforcement of directional parking violations in the City. Directional Parking Violation MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER Enforcement THIS LETTER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Thompson Letters were read from Helen Thompson, 3517 NE 10th St.,Renton, 98056; O'Halloran&DeMastus— Mike O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St.,Renton, 98059; and Sandel DeMastus, 1137 Fireworks Ban Harrington Ave.NE,Renton, 98056,requesting that the City ban the use of fireworks. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THESE LETTERS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Rogers— Correspondence was read from Nancy Bainbridge Rogers with Cairncross& Heritage Renton Hill Plat Hempelmann,P.S., 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98104,requesting that the Appeal(PP-00-053) \�� Heritage Renton Hill preliminary plat(PP-00-053)and SEPA appeal resolution OO, be reviewed by Council on August 13,2001. �� Council President Clawson reported that Committee of the Whole will discuss the matter on August 20,2001. OLD BUSINESS Public Safety Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending Public Safety Committee approval of an agreement with Yakima County for jail services to house Renton Police: Yakima County inmates. This agreement becomes effective immediately upon the authorized Contract for Jail Services signatures of both Yakima and Renton. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for adoption. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.) Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 194932- 195395, and three wire transfers totaling $2,608,641.99; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 32678 -33350 and 1102 direct deposits and two wire transfers totaling$3,456,881.16. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution#3521 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Police: Yakima County agreement between Yakima County,Washington, and the City of Renton for Contract for Jail Services the housing of inmates in the Yakima County Jail. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3522 A resolution was read authorizing the temporary street closures at Houser Way Public Works: Eastside S. and Morris Ave. S.,Houser Way S. and Burnett Ave. S., and Morris Ave. S. Interceptor Project, Street at S. 7th St. for the installation of 72-inch diameter pipe for the King County Closures Eastside Interceptor Restoration Project. Replaces Resolution#3508 adopted on 6/11/2001 by correcting the length of the street closures from eight to nine months. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the meeting of 8/13/2001 for second and final reading: �xE 6A(P-t-✓ 8- 6- o/ Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. CITY OF RENTON AUG 0 2 2001 ECEID CITY C ERK'S OFFICE August 1, 2001 City Councilmembers City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Mayor Jesse Tanner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal City File Nos. LUA-00053,PP, ECF and LUA-00-140, AAD Dear Councilmembers and Mayor Tanner: r' We write to request your assistance. This-firm represents Bill Sherman and Todd Bennett and their companies, Sherman Homes ("Sherman") and Bennett Homes ("Bennett"). Mr. Sherman is the current applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Mr. Sherman was not the original applicant;but acquired a fifty percent interest in the property and permit applications in February, 2001. At that time,Mr. Sherman expected to be installing plat improvements this summer and building homes for Renton citizens in 2001. Unfortunately, the project has continued to be plagued by delays in City processing. We understand that, on July 23, 2001, an announcement was made by Councilmember and Committee Chair Koelker-Wheeler that the Planning and Development Committee would provide its report on these matters on August 6, 2001. Accordingly,we expect that on August 6, the Council will be able to set this matter for Monday August 13,2001 for decision on the preliminary plat and resolution of the SEPA Appeal. We urge the Council to review this matter on August 13, 2001. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 nrogers@cairncross.com Seattle,Washington 98104-2323 direct:(206)254-4417 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 www.cairncross.com • City Councilmembers Mayor Jesse Tanner August 1, 2001 Page 2 The delays imposed on this application are inconsistent with Renton's usual model implementation of regulatory reform requirements for land use application processing. For your information, a summary timeline of this application's processing delays follows: • During the autumn of 1999 through the spring of 2000, the applicant held several community meetings, and met with the City to fine-tune its application. • In May of 2000,the application was deemed complete for processing. • The original hearing date scheduled for June 27, 2000 was postponed about four and one-half months to November 14, and subsequently extended to November 16 and December 12, 2000. • The Hearing Examiner's decision on both the preliminary plat and a neighborhood State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA") appeal was issued on January 25, 2001. That decision affirmed the Environmental Review Committee's issuance of an MDNS and recommended that the Preliminary Plat be approved by the City Council. • The Renton Hill Community Association("Association") filed a request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner on February 7, 2001. The Hearing Examiner considered the request and provided a substantive response on February 12, 2001, upholding his original decision. • The Association appealed the Hearing Examiner Decision to the City Council in February, 2001. • On February 26,2001, the City Council agreed to send the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to the Planning and Development Committee for recommendation. • The Council Planning and Development Committee held a hearing on April 26, 2001. • .On=June 18, 2001 the Planning and Development Committee sent a memorandum. requesting more information from staff. • On June 21, 2001 staff responded to that request, and in favor of all previous decisions. • On July 23,2001,the Council Planning and Development Committee chair announced that the Committee report would be provided on August 6, 2001. These delays are well beyond the normal processing timeframes. To date,Mr. Sherman has patiently waited for these delays to be resolved and a decision to be rendered on his application. Again,we urge you to avoid further delay and to set these issues for review at your meeting on August 13, 2001. City Councilmembers Mayor Jesse Tanner August 1,2001 Page 3 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Nancy B inbridge Rogers NBR:kmo cc: Larry Warren Gregg Zimmerman William A. Sherman,Jr. Todd Bennett Ryan Fike {00086540.DOC;1} IENTON „LL City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen August 7,2001 Nancy Bainbridge Rogers Caimcross &Hempelmann,P.S. 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle,WA 98104-2323 Re: Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal; File No. LUA-00-053, PP,ECF and LUA-00-140,AAD Dear Ms. Bainbridge: At the regular Council meeting of August 6, 2001,the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to refer to.the Committee of the Whole the following issues related to the Heritage Renton Hill preliminary plat appeal: 1)the safety and design of the intersection of 7th and Renton Avenue S.; 2)the impact of the increased traffic on what amounts to one-way streets on the Hill because of the need for on-street parking; and 3).the:safety.and adequacy of the entrance to the plat. To provide the other four Councilmembers who are not members of the Planning and Development Committee the opportunity to review the files on this matter, the topic has been scheduled at the Committee:of the Whole meeting on August 20, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. in the 7th floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall. There is a possibility that the time of the meeting may change;if this occurs,you will be notified. A copy of the Planning and Development Committee report is enclosed for your information. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marilyn . tersen City Clerk/Cable Manager cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Dan Clawson Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services Department pi oO1. 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425) 430-6516 as&. s.Auy��.' `• This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer August 6,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 258 instead of R-8 in order to preserve the rural atmosphere of the existing neighborhood,especially since the area abuts a natural wetland area. Les Piele, 14309 SE 125th St.,Renton, 98059, stated that John McTighe's property is located south of his property,has already been annexed to the City, and has been sold to a developer. He indicated that Mr. McTighe has attempted to prevent him from annexing his property to the City. • MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 60%PETITION TO ANNEX FOR THE PIELE ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PACKAGE FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. CARRIED. Responding to Council inquiry regarding the proposed zoning,Mr.Dennison explained that the maximum density under R-8 is very close to the maximum density of King County's R-4 zoning. APPEALS Planning and Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Planning&Development report regarding the Heritage Renton Hill preliminary plat appeal(PP-00-053 & Committee AAD-00-149). The appeal consists of two issues. The first is an environmental Appeal: Heritage Renton Hill, appeal from the mitigated determination of non-significance for this project. Renton Hill Community The second issue deals with the appropriateness of the proposed preliminary Association(PP-00-053 & plat. AAD-00-149) With respect to the environmental appeal, the Committee finds no substantial error in fact or law and recommended that the Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision. With respect to the to the plat, the Committee focused on three issues all related to transportation and traffic safety on Renton Hill. These issues were addressed in the Planning and Development Committee Report of June 18,2001, and in a letter asking for additional explanations from the City's Transportation Division. Based upon the record before the Committee on these transportation issues,the Committee noted that the applicant's transportation engineer found the questioned areas safe, as did the City's Transportation Division. However,the Committee also heard, from the record, substantial testimony from Renton Hill residents about transportation safety. The Committee believes that the record is contradictory about public safety and adequate roads, and the Committee makes no recommendations on these issues. Rather,the Planning&Development Committee recommended that the Committee of the Whole make the decision concerning 1)the safety and design of the intersection at S. 7th St. and Renton Ave. S.,2)the impact of the increased traffic on what amounts to one-way streets on Renton Hill because of the need for on-street parking, and 3)the safety and adequacy of the entrance to this plat. Since the record is substantial,the Committee recommended that Councilmembers who are not members of the Planning and Development Committee be given at least two weeks in which to review the record prior to the Committee of the Whole meeting. It should be noted that the Committee considered recommending that the Council commission an independent transportation engineering report to consider the three transportation issues August 6,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 259 previously noted and that is still an option if the full Council wishes to have additional information on which to base its decision. This appeal once again highlights the difficult role that the City Council plays when sitting as a quasi-judicial body handling land use appeals since the changes made in State law on regulatory reform. The Council normally listens to its constituents,often on a one-on-one basis in order to fulfill their jobs as Councilmembers. However,when handling quasi-judicial appeals,no such contact is permitted. In fact,the Councilmembers are limited to the testimony already in the record and cannot consider new evidence, even if they believe that there areas that have been inadequately explored or new issues that were not explored at all. The Committee therefore recommended that the topic of the Council's appellate role in quasi-judicial matters be referred to the Committee of the Whole for review and recommendation. MOVED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler stated for the record that there is a substantial amount of material to review regarding this matter. If the report is approved, Ms.Keolker-Wheeler said that the full Council would sit as the appellate body which means that the Council cannot discuss the appeal with the public or receive further testimony. She expressed her frustration with the land use appeal process,commenting that if Council did not hear appeals and the process was handled outside of Renton, Councilmembers could assist citizens with the appeal process. Council discussion ensued regarding the issue of handling appeals within the City of Renton or having the Superior Court hear appeals. Councilman Corman also expressed his frustration with the inability of Council to talk to citizens about issues because of an appeal. Councilman Parker and Council President Clawson indicated their support for having the appeal process remain within the responsibility of the City. *MOTION CARRIED. Appeal: Service Linen Planning and Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Expansion, Service Linen report regarding the Service Linen expansion appeal (SA-00-131). The Supply(SA-00-131) Committee convened to consider the appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated March 26, 2001,and reconsidered on April 26,2001. The subject property is located at 903 S.4th St. The applicant seeks a site plan approval for a 33,000 square foot expansion of the existing Service Linen facility. The applicant appealed four conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner. The four conditions concerned: 1)not increasing the number of shifts or the hours of those shifts; 2)the hours of operation of the boilers; 3)the installation of best technology to reduce noise created by the operation; and 4)the installation of best technology to reduce odors created by the operation. The Committee found that the Hearing Examiner has committed a substantial error of law related to conditions 9 and 10 in that he imposed conditions that went beyond the hours and number of shifts for the existing operation. The Committee concluded that the language proposed by the applicant for conditions 9 and 10 is appropriate and should be adopted. The Committee also concluded that the Hearing Examiner did not have the authority to impose condition 11,insofar as it affects hours of operation. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Date, s- ° / COMMITTEE REPORT (August 6, 2001) • .:> :. erita a:Renton Hill Prelimina�r ..Ptat A eal :> (File_LUA:�00- 053, PP ECF and`LUA-0:0-:1449,AAD) (Referred`February 12 =2001) This appeal consists of two issues. The first is an environmental appeal from the mitigated determination of non-significance for this project. The second issue deals with the appropriateness of the proposed preliminary plat. With respect to the environmental;appeal,:.the,Planning and Development Committee finds no substantial:error.:jin`fact orrvlaw,and recommends that the Council affirm the Hearing;Examiner's_decision: With respect to the plat,the Planning and Development=Committee focused on three issues all related to transportation and traffic safety on Renton Hill. These issues were addressed inthe'Plannm4and Development Committee Report of June 18, 2001''and in aletter asking for additional explanations from the Transportation Division ofvthe City:. Based upon the record before the Planning and Development Committee`on these:.transportation issues, the Committee notes that the applicant's transportation engineer found the questioned areas safe, as.did:the<City's:transportation-division. However, the Committee also heard; from-the"record, substantial testimony from Renton Hill residents about transportation safety. The Committee believes that the record is contradictory about public safety and adequate roads and the Committee makes no recommendation on these issues. Rather, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Committee of the Whole make the decision concerning 1) the safety and design of the intersection of 7th and Renton Avenue S., 2) the impact of the increased traffic on what amounts to one-way streets on the Hill because of the need for on-street parking, and 3) the safety and adequacy of the entrance to this plat. Since the record is substantial, the Committee recommends that the Council members who are not members of the Planning and Development -Page 1 -Heritage Renton Hill Appeal Committee Report Committee be given at least two weeks in which to review the record prior to the Committee of the Whole meeting. It should be noted that the Committee considered recommending that the Council commission an independent Transportation Engineering Report to consider the three transportation issues noted above and that is still an option if the full Council wishes to have additional information on which to base its decision This appeal once again highlights the difficult role that the City Council plays when sitting as a quasi-judicial body handling land use appeals since the changes made in state law on regulatory reform. The Council normally listens to its constituents, often on a one-on-one basis in order to fulfill their jobs as Councilmembers. However, when handling quasi-judicial appeals, no such contact is permitted. In fact, the Councilmembers are limited to the testimony already in the record and cannot consider new evidence, even if . they believe that there are areas,thattave;heen inadequately explored or new issues that were not explored`-,atya 1. The Planning and Development Committee therefore recommends that the topic-of the subject of the Council's appellate role in quasi-Judicial matters be referred to the Committee of the Whole for:review and recommendation: II'\/����i��� •,.'(,/ �jw[ (%/`�^•Jj(j�,It;„; �• r•Y' r,5., �h, '•s ,'C1'�'- fir/.'( . Kathy eolker-Wheeler, Chair • erri Bri re, Vice Chair R dy Corman, Member • -Page 2-Heritage Renton Hill Appeal Committee Report July 23,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 247 Negotiating Team, to participate with other affected cities in negotiations with King County for a new jail contract. Council concur. (See page 248 for resolution.) MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 8.e.FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Citing a conflict of interest with item 8.e., Councilwoman Briere excused Item 8.e. herself from the meeting. Time: 8:13 p.m. Plat: Briere Creek Division 2, Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions, of the Vicinity of NE 19th St& Briere Creek Division 2 final plat; 18 single-family lots on 3.68 acres located in Duvall Ave NE(FP-01-092) the vicinity of NE 19th St. and Duvall Ave.NE(FP-01-092). Council concur. (See below for resolution.) MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8.e.AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE RELATED RESOLUTION(ITEM 11.c.). CARRIED. Resolution#3515 A resolution was read approving the Briere Creek Division 2 final plat; 3.68 Plat: Briere Creek Division 2, acres located in the vicinity of NE 19th St. and Duvall Ave.NE(FP-01-092). Vicinity of NE 19th St& MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Duvall Ave NE(FP-01-092) THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Councilwoman Briere returned to the meeting. Time: 8:15 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler announced that the Planning and Appeal:Heritage Renton Hill, Development Committee report regarding the Heritage Renton Hill appeal will Renton Hill Community Assoc be presented at the August 6th Council meeting. (PP-00-053 &AAD-00-149) Community Services: "The Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler stated that the performers in the teen musical Wiz" Teen Musical "The Wiz" are excellent and encouraged everyone to attend the show. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation(Aviation)Committee Chair Persson presented a report Committee regarding WorldWind Helicopters,Inc. operating permit. The Committee Airport: WorldWind recommended that: Helicopters Operating Permit 1. The City Council authorize AeroDyne Aviation to sublease hangar and & Sublease office space to WorldWind Helicopters,Inc. at 300 Airport Way, and 2. The City Council approve the operating permit between the City of Renton and WorldWind Helicopters,Inc., and that the Mayor and City Clerk execute the operating permit. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler stated for the record that the WorldWind Helicopters operating permit was one of the exceptions to the moratorium on the approval of leases, subleases and operating permits at the Renton Airport. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report regarding the Committee logo for the Neighborhood Grant Program. The Committee met on July 17, EDNSP:Neighborhood Grant 2001,to review staffs recommendations for the design and implementation of a Program Logo logo for the Neighborhood Grant Program. The logo is modeled on the current RECEIVED it 52001 CITY OF R E N T O N ENTON Cnl(COUNCtL PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEP , MEMORANDUM DATE: June 21,2001 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Gregg Zimmerman z STAFF CONTACT: Gregg Zimmerman(x-7311) SUBJECT: Transportation Safety Issues Associated with Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat This memo is prepared in response to the June 18, 2001 Committee Report and the request for information made by the Planning and Development Committee. The staff response is in italics. 1. The entrance/exit from the plat is a very unusual design which brings three roads together in a very odd intersection. The developer originally proposed an entrance/exit from the Seattle Public Utility Cedar River Pipeline easement. This is not a public right of way however, so was not a viable proposal(City Code 4-7-080.B.2 requires access to be established to a public road for each segregated parcel). Seattle exercises full control over access onto their pipeline right-of-way and also maintenance of the pipeline road. It is not desirable to allow the primary access to a subdivision from a private road that neither the City nor the future residents will exercise any control over(note that during the City of Renton's negotiations with Seattle over the water franchise, Seattle made it clear that they control access to the pipeline road, and can make decisions independent of Renton's or the residents'wishes regarding public access, conditions associated with public access, and pavement maintenance). The only portion of the School District property that fronts on a public right-of-way is where the entrance is now proposed to be located. This is the city's preferred location, the only feasible location, and the entrance was moved to this place on the property at the city's request. Staff feels this will be a safe intersection, as addressed below. 2. The intersection of 7th and Renton Ave.South is a four-way intersection,with three of the four legs of the intersection having stop signs. The fourth leg,which is a very steep uphill leg,does not have a stop sign. The traffic from the plat would have to go through this intersection. The distance from the stop line for vehicles exiting from the plat to the stop line of vehicles waiting to travel westbound from the intersection of S 7th Court and Beacon Way S. exceeds the minimum based on AASHTO A policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Signs and channelization will conform with the requirements of the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Staff believes this will be a safe intersection. C:\My Documents\heritage hills.doc\cor Page 2. Staff concurs with the traffic report for this project, which indicates that the additional traffic generated by the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat will have negligible impact on the safety of the intersection at 7th and Renton Avenue South. The Stop signs conform to MUTCD standards. 3. The rights-of-way are very narrow on Renton Hill,particularly on Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. Houses on the hill have been developed without adequate garage space,resulting in a large amount of street parking. The effect is that these two streets are reduced,in many places,to one-lane roads in addition to being very steep. These cited conditions are very common in Renton, Seattle, and elsewhere,particularly in the older neighborhoods that were built with narrow street standards and smaller sized lots. Many streets in Renton will not easily accommodate two-way traffic when cars are parked on both sides of the streets. Since these streets are neighborhood streets not subject to heavy traffic loads, motorists commonly and safely negotiate these situations by proceeding single file. The situation will not differ much from current conditions on Renton Hill, except that there will be marginally more traffic after the development is built. It should be noted that there has not been an accident problem on Renton Ave. South nor on Cedar Ave. South in the past and one is not anticipated because of the development. For the reasons stated above,staff does not feel that there will be a public safety hazard introduced by this development as designed. The Committee has asked what existing City Codes,Rules or Regulations,whether original City Ordinances,or Codes adopted by reference would apply to these areas. It is assumed that this request pertains to street standards. Section 4-6-060 of the City Code establishes street standards. These standards apply to new streets and half-street improvements. New streets associated with the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat comply with these standards. The standards do not apply to existing streets. This project also complies with the adopted City-wide traffic concurrency standards(City Code 4-6-070)pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The project will be required to pay a transportation mitigation fee in compliance with 4-1-190 of City Code. The City has also adopted by reference(Code 9-7-1)the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction published by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and amendments(Code 9-7-2). Consistent with this document,the City implements national standards established by AASHTO and MUTCD(see above references)and also ITE. Staff feels that the transportation features of the proposed Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat are in substantial compliance with these standards. The Committee has asked whether the Growth Management Act or any other state code mandates approval of development in areas like this where there is concern about public safety and no reasonable means for the city to address the concern or require the developer to mitigate the concern. To our knowledge neither the Growth Management Act nor any other state code mandates approval of development that creates safety hazards. Staff feels that while there may be safety concerns among the project appellants and others,there are no safety hazards associated with this project. Likewise,staff is not aware of any state code that addresses"safety concerns". cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Sandra Meyer Neil Watts Jay Covington Sue Carlson Elizabeth Higgins Larry Warren Karl Hamilton C:\My Documents\heritage hills.doc\cor • .• APPROVED BY • CITY COUNCIL . Date --"/- o/ .- • PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE • COMMITTEE REPORT June 18, 2001 • ' • .._;..- .: ':: : _:.� .:._. . . :.::',Herita e-;Reaton,Hil1:1'rehmma ._P1at:A eal':,::.'..._..._,_:,_.,::__::= �:__,:.__:_:::._,::,:::_:_::;_.: _.....s•._.•. _.__.._._ ..._....... �. F,-an .LUA-::0.0�1.4. _ -- -- -_ _ -- .n, :..... ...:.:....:::..::-.._..__...... .. .......:_,'.:.; .;::.�.:.� rredl�eb a I2': �z�� - - - - - - The record is quite voluminous for this appeal,with numerous audiotapes and an extensive • written record. The Planning and Development Committee has narrowed its inquiry to traffic . 'safety issues and plans to author a letter to the Transportation Division concerning applicable . . City Codes which can be(perhaps were) applied to the staff transportation analysis of this .. ..•. project and its impacts on the Renton Hill community. Specifically the Planning and . • 'Development Committee is concerned about:the.safety of the intersection of 7th and Renton • • 'Avenue South, increased traffic on what amounts to one-way streets on the hill because of the need for on street parking, and,tlie entrance toa 4••this plat.;- -w, -' .-- � . . • . The Planning and Development Committee reeommends.'tliese'issues be addressed now because the Platting statute`requires.the CityCouncil to make a finding that the plat makes . . • appropriate provisions for public safety,and streets:: ,:„,_ • . • . .e' , ..+. 'r vas r .s • . .s.•- ... . �.i AFT:.•*• ' . _", .: . . • • .'--::_ - : . - li'c; c.i.,/ //�' / /66,64.' . bd .f J -ci.'. e.. - ...• Kathy Ki•iker=Wheeler:Chair . • •Terri Briere, V ce Chair . • . •� - •• : . . ) .. ... • . .. . ._ •. • : .. . . .. . . . - . . . . . ... Randy Corman,Member ; ' ' • : - � - . T10.30:55 • - • &&-- • -. 7. _* . • . RECEIVED • JUN 19 •2001 . - ... _ `'CITY OF.RENTON. :: . . PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN'. .. 4 OF RENTON MIL € �` Renton City Council Jesse Tanner,Mayor MEMORANDUM To: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department From: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair ea Planning &Development Committee of the Renton City Council Date: June 18, 2001 Subject: Transportation Safety Issues Associated with Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat The Planning and Development Committee has spent substantial time in hearing an appeal to the Hearing Examiner's decisions and recommendation on the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat. The Committee has several concerns, which can be primarily reduced to three transportation and safety issues. 1. The entrance and exit from this plat is a very unusual design which brings three roads together in a very odd intersection. 2. The intersection of 7th and Renton Avenue South is a four-way intersection, with three of the four legs of the intersection having stop signs. The fourth leg, which is a very steep uphill leg does not have a stop sign. The traffic from the plat would have to go through this intersection. 3. The rights-of-way are very narrow on Renton Hill, particularly on Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. Houses on the hill have been developed without adequate. - garage space, resulting in a large amount of street parking. The effect is that these two streets are reduced, in many places, to one lane roads in addition to being very steep. These three transportation concerns raise public safety issues. The Committee would like to know what existing City Codes, Rules or Regulations, whether original City Ordinances, or Codes adopted by reference, would apply to these areas. The Committee would also like to know whether or not these various Codes, Rules and Regulations have been applied to this plat and its transportation impacts. In addition the Committee would like to know whether the Growth Management Act or any other state code mandates approval of development in areas like this where there is concern about public safety and no reasonable means for the city to address the concern or require the developer to mitigate the concern. We ask that you respond to this request as quickly as possible since the appeal has been pending for some time. 1901: 2001 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6501 , 1r .. June 18,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 192 Citizen Comment:Bean—St. Paula Bean,334 Morris Ave. S.,Renton, 98055, questioned the age of the Anthony Church Vacation, traffic study she was sent related to the proposed St.Anthony Church vacation, Whitworth Ave S between S and suggested that a new study be conducted. Ms.Bean also expressed her 4th St&Parallel Alley(VAC- desire for the church to create a site plan prior to vacating Whitworth Ave. S. 00-003) CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Minutes of June 11, Approval of Council minutes of June 11,2001. Council concur. 2001 Appointment: Planning Mayor Tanner reappointed Natalie Dohrn, 3815 Monterey Pl.NE,Renton, Commission 98056; Eugene Ledbury, 511 Stevens Ct.NW,Renton, 98055; and Rosemary Quesenberry, 3609 SE 18th Ct.,Renton, 98059; to the Planning Commission for three-year terms expiring on 6/30/2004. Council concur. CAG: 01-066,2001 Street City Clerk reported bid opening on 6/11/2001 for CAG-01-066,2001 Street Overlay,ICON Materials Overlay; six bids;project estimate$691,826.56; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder,,ICON Materials,Inc., in the amount of$628,300.92. Council concur. Development Services: One Development Services Division recommended removal of the restrictive Valley Place Rezone,Removal covenants associated with the 1981 One Valley Place Properties Rezone(R-81- of Restrictive Covenants(R- 047)which state that future development of the site be subject to the Planned 81-047) Unit Development(PUD)process. Refer to Planning&Development Committee. Executive: Sister City Executive Department requested authorization to establish a sister city Establishment with Cuautla, relationship with Cuautla,Jalisco,Mexico in order to improve understanding Jalisco,Mexico through cultural,educational and business exchanges with Cuautla residents. Refer to Community Services Committee. MOVED BY NELSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COUNCIL CONCUR. OLD BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 193584- 194002 and two wire'transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $2,935,208.82; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 32004- 32020 totaling $11,142.33. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning&Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Committee report on the Heritage Renton Hill preliminary plat appeal(PP-00-053 &AAD- Appeal: Heritage Renton Hill, 00-149). The record is quite voluminous for this appeal,with numerous Renton Hill Community audiotapes and an extensive written record. The Planning and Development Association(PP-00-053 & Committee has narrowed its inquiry to traffic safety issues and plans to author a AAD-00-149) letter to the Transportation Division concerning applicable City Codes which can be or were applied to the staff transportation analysis of this project and its impacts on the Renton Hill community. Specifically,the Committee is concerned about the safety of the intersection of S. 7th St. and Renton Ave. S., increased traffic on what amounts to one-way streets on the hill because of the need for on street parking,and the entrance to this plat. The Committee recommended these issues be addressed now because the platting statute requires the City Council to make a fmding that the plat makes appropriate provisions for public safety and streets. June 18,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 193 Responding to Mayor Tanner's inquiry regarding the appropriateness of asking for staff study since this item is still under appeal,City Attorney Larry Warren explained that the letter to the Transportation Division as drafted does not ask for new information but asks for what codes are applicable and which ones were analyzed on the staff report. He emphasized that the Committee is asking for factual information only. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* In response to Councilman Parker's inquiry regarding the length of time needed for staff to respond to the letter,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman responded that it will take approximately one week. *MOTION CARRIED. Community Services:Pavilion Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler asked for the cost of earthquake repairs to the Building Earthquake Damage Pavilion building,and inquired about the status of the retail brokerage services Repairs Cost Request contract for marketing the building. Mayor Tanner stated that he believed the retail brokerage services contract had expired; and said that he would provide her with information regarding the cost of repairs. ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution#3511 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Public Works: Eastside Memorandum of Agreement by and between the City of Renton and King Interceptor Project,Memo of County for the Eastside Interceptor(ESI) Section 1 Capacity Restoration Agreement with King County Agreement,in order to establish the criterion by which the County's supplemental pipeline construction project will meet its overall objectives. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PARKER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Petersen— Councilman Persson reported receipt of a letter from Inez Petersen, 3306 Lake N 33rd P1 Condominium, Washington Blvd.N. #2,Renton,98056, stating that the owner of a Potential Parking Violations condominium located at 805/807 N. 33rd Pl.has enlarged the parking arrangement on her property without City approval. Ms.Petersen requested that the property owner be required to comply with pertinent parking,loading and driveway regulations to legally,establish new parking on her premises; and if approval cannot be granted,require the property owner to discontinue use of the non-compliant parking spaces. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE • TRANSPORTATION COMMITL'EE. CARRIED. Community Services:Public Councilman Persson commented on the poor sound quality of the public Address Systems Improvement address systems used at the ribbon cutting ceremony at the new Senior Center Request Rotary Sun Room and other venues at which City presentations are made. He asked that staff investigate improving the portable public address systems. AUDIENCE COMMENT Chris Clifford,2721 Talbot Rd. S.,Renton,98055, expressed his displeasure Citizen Comment: Clifford— with the City's handling of the closure of the Lande Feed Building and Lande Feed Building Closure, questioned why the building was not closed until Friday,when the City Declared Dangerous Building conducted its inspection on Wednesday. He stated that the inspection process was unfair and asked that Craig Lande be allowed to operate his store out of the front part of the building. APPROVED BY ` • • CITY COUNCIL . _ • . . Date �_fK o • . • - PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE • ' , • • • • COMMITTEE REPORT ' • . June 18,2001 •'...�'.i ....:.:.:.:::::—:::.::::.:u::e._s.::_.:.::::::>.:�:....-.-......k � .. : .: :. .r .;.:'::i".'..::e:F:::i:;j::�+'::...::�":::iS:1:::e:e:i:::::fi.:ii:i`: :.::::...:.::..::..:..•:::..._...:::...:.::.: .:.:_:_:..::,...:Herita e,Renton.Hill Prelimma ..:=Plat:A ea,,.. :._.::::-::.k,:._:::.:.:_:,:. :_.:::.- ......._...... ile:::LT:T �OQ:U53�`�?l?`'EC `:and"LU =O..;- ,4- r. ....::.... ..:....;:.: . ...-..._......__ rr Febru ,.:12-3/4ZOQ2 °<_=�,:: _:- ° •; -.:::.:.:..:::. The record is quite voluminous for this.appeal,with numerous audiotapes and an extensive written record. The Planning and Development Committee has narrowed its inquiry to traffic safety issues and plans to author a letter to the Transportation Division.concerning applicable. _- City Codes which can be (perhaps were) applied to the staff.transportation analysis of this • project and_its impacts on the Renton 4111 community. Specifically the Planning and- . .`Development Committee is concerned about:the safety of the intersection of 7th and Renton . . -AvenueSouth, increased traffic on•what:amounts to one-way streets on the hill because of the need for on street parking, and.the entrance to this plat. The Planning and Development Committee recommends:these'issues be addressed now_. - -•• because the Platting statute requiresthe:City-.Council to make a'•finding that the plat makes --' '-- - appropriate provisions for public safety.,and streets:•••-.•:r ., s - 1 ce ��� •' . --Kathy K=•1ker= ,Wheeler, Chair:: — _-- - - r. / .. : . • . . . . • - • •Terri Briere,V ce Chair .• - - - _J - Randy-Corman,Member.. -• . . .. T10.30:55. .. 1n_. illy✓-. • - . - • - -. • CITY. DF RENTON Renton City Council ammo r Jesse Tanner,Mayor MEMORANDUM To: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department From: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair e,6,3 Planning &Development Committee of the Renton City Council Date: June 18, 2001 Subject: Transportation Safety Issues Associated with Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat The Planning and Development Committee has spent substantial time in hearing an appeal to the Hearing Examiner's decisions and recommendation on the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat. The Committee has several concerns, which can be primarily reduced to three transportation and safety issues. 1. The entrance and exit from this plat is a very unusual design which brings three roads together in a very odd intersection. 2. The intersection of 7th and Renton Avenue South is a four-way intersection, with three of the four legs of the intersection having stop signs. The fourth leg, which is a very steep uphill leg does not have a stop sign. The traffic from the plat would have to go through this intersection. 3. The rights-of-way are very narrow on Renton Hill, particularly on Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. Houses on the hill have been developed without adequate garage space, resulting in a large amount of street parking. The effect is that these two streets are reduced, in many places, to one lane roads in addition to being very steep. These three transportation concerns raise public safety issues. The Committee would like to know what existing City Codes, Rules or Regulations, whether original City Ordinances, or Codes adopted by reference, would apply to these areas. The Committee would also like to know whether or not these various Codes, Rules and Regulations have been applied to this plat and its transportation impacts. In addition the Committee would like to know whether the Growth Management Act or any other state code mandates approval of development in areas like this where there is concern about public safety and no reasonable means 'for the city to address the concern or require the developer to mitigate the concern. We ask.that you respond to this request as quickly as possible since the appeal has been pending for some time. 901.. 20o1, 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6501 ` ;; This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer <. 1' 3 c. February 26,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 55 that the City will do everything necessary to make sure that the use of the fan does not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Mr.Dineen stated that it is difficult for the general public to research the City Code and development plans in order to field concerns about potential impacts from proposed neighborhood developments; and he suggested that the Development Services Department develop a checklist to assist lay people in their research of impacts such as fumes,noise, and traffic. Planning/Building/Public Works Dept tinent Administrator Gregg Zimmerman explained that projects that are reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee rarely are developed to the extent that the location of mechanical items is already known. Those additions are developed during the design phase and are reviewed upon submission of building plans and application for mechanical and electrical permits. Mr.Zimmerman explained that the exhaust fan would activate when the carbon monoxide level in the garage reaches a certain point. He detailed the acceptable and unacceptable levels of carbon monoxide and its effect on humans. Mr.Zimmerman said that the City is considering hiring a private consultant to assist in thoroughly reviewing the facts and to help in the testing of the carbon monoxide levels. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Appeal: Heritage Renton Hill, / City Clerk Division submitted appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision Renton Hill Community regarding Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat(PP-00-053 &AAD-00-149); Association, (PP-00-053 & 57 single-family lots on 10.35 acres located in the vicinity of Beacon Way S., AAD-00-149) SE 7th Ct.,Jones Ave. S., and S. 7th St. Appeal filed by Renton Hill Community Association, accompanied by the required fee. Refer to Planning &Development Committee. CAG: 01-008, South City Clerk Division reported bid opening on 02/13/2001 for CAG-01-008, Downtown Water Main& South Downtown Water Main& Storm Sewer,Phase I; 16 bids;project Storm Sewer,Katspan estimate$1,079,726.98; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder,Katspan,Inc., in the amount of$915,166.77. Council concur. CAG: 01-002,Trailer City Clerk Division reported bid opening on 02/13/2001 for CAG-01-002, Mounted 500 KW Engine Trailer Mounted 500 KW Engine Generator Set; 3 bids;project estimate Generator Set, Simpson Power $108,328.50; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the Products low bidder, Simpson Power Products,Ltd.,in the amount of$105,157.38. Council concur. CAG: 99-082,City Hall Community Services Department submitted CAG-99-082,City Hall Parking Parking Garage Access Ramp, Garage Access Ramp; and recommended approval of the project,authorization Gary Merlino Const Co for final pay estimate in the amount of$18,222.29,commencement of 60-day lien period,and release of retained amount of$85,592.40 to Gary Merlino Construction Company,Inc.,contractor,if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Development Services: Development Services Division requested approval to hire a contract employee, Plumbing/Mechanical at a cost of$32,000,to provide building inspection and plan review services for Inspector Contract Employee Sour months while a Plumbing/Mechanical Inspector is on medical leave. Refer Temporary Hire to Finance Committee. // CITY Oi --.'ENTON COUNCIL AGENDA ao LL AI#: $ Ct, SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 02/26/2001 Dept/Div/Board....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision: Ordinance Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat Resolution File No.PP-00-053 and AAD-00-149 Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(02/08/01) Other C. Request for Reconsideration&Response(02/12/01) D. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(01/25/01) RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee I Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed on 2/8/01 by Renton Hill Community Association,represented by Ruth Larson,accompanied by required fee. t _ ., ' ; 41, CITY F RENTON 11� ' City Clerk � Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen February 15, 2001 APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Hill Community Association • represented by Ruth Larson RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 1/25/2001 on Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA-00-053,PP, ECF and LUA-00-149, AAD. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Heritage Renton Hill request for preliminary plat has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, 2001 in the 7th floor conference room of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held. by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. Copies of the appeal are available in the City Clerk office. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Manly tersen City Cler Cable Manager __ Attachment cc: Parties of Record (156) Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2501 /FAX(425)235-2513 Co; This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer , City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) • calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council - Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord.4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template.for 5160® Mr.Ken Adams Mr.James Baker Mr.&Mrs.Thomas Barr 706 Renton Avenue So. 524 Mill Avenue So. 802 High Street - Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Ms.Dianne Beatty Mr.&Mrs.Brian Beckman Mr.Pat Bellport 1730 SE 7`h Court 435 Cedar Avenue So. 411 Cedar Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.&Mrs.Barton Bennett Mr.Douglas Bergquist Mr. &Mrs.Mike Bishop 1807 SE 7th Court River Ridge Estates Homeowners Assoc. 326 Renton Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 1801 SE 7`h Court Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Dino Boscolo Mr. &Mrs.Claude Bouchard Ms.Ruth Bradley. 915 High Avenue So. 1506 Beacon Way South 709 High Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.&Mrs.Douglas Brandt Ms.Darlene Bressan Mr. &Mrs.John Burkhalter 610 Renton Avenue So. 901 High Avenue So. 901 Jones Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 • Ms.Margaret Burkhalter Ms.Dana Calhoun Ms.Eleanor Cantrell 715 Jones Avenue So. Mr.Robert Davis 1416 South 7th Renton WA 98055 433 Cedar Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Ralph Carter Mr.Timothy Cogger Mr. &Mrs.Barry Conger 630 High Avenue South 609 Grant Avenue South 1301 South 9th Street Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.Bert Custer Ms.Gina Custer Ms. Cheryl Danza 714 Cedar Avenue So. 1209 South 7th Street 706 Renton Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.Robert Elliot Mr. &Mrs.Quentin Ellis Mr.Dale Fountaine 300 Renton Avenue So. 715 High Avenue South 617 Cedar Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Don Faull Sheri Frank/Grant Anderson Mr. &Mrs. W.Free 804 Renton Avenue So. 426 Cedar Avenue South 1012 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Arirlrocc I ohal_ I nen- . . Smooth Eked SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Mr.Frank Gallacher Mr.Bob Gambill Ms.Lily Garfield • 719 Jones Avenue South Seattle Public Utilities, 10th Floor-" 265 Maiden Lane East Renton WA 98055 710 Second Avenue Seattle WA 98112 Seattle WA 98104-1714 Ms.Patricia Gilroy Ms.Rosemary Grassi Ms.Kathy Griffin 535 Renton Avenue So. PO Box 1188(422 Cedar Av. S) 1425 Beacon Way South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Ann Grinolds Mr.Manly Grinolds Mr. Roger Grinolds 324 Cedar Ave.So. 1223 South 3`d Street 330 Cedar Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.John Guiliani Ms.Bambi Gunderson Mr.Russ Haag 1400 South 7th Street 1107 South 4th Street 704 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Cynthia Halse • Mr.Frederick Hartley Mr. &Mrs.Dan Hemenway 15404—167th Place SE 701 High Avenue South 1712 SE 7th Court Renton WA 98058 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Sharon Herman/Chuck Lyden Ms.Pat Hodgson Hopkins and Chombers 711 Jones Avenue South 620 Renton Avenue South PO Box 691 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Margaret Houser Diane Hyatt/Terry Stange Mr. &Mrs.W.Jaeckel 2331 SE 8th Place 720 Cedar Avenue South Falcon Ridge Newsletter Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 2342 SE 8`h Place Renton WA 98055 Mr.Bill Johnson Mr.&Mrs.Phil Johnson Mr.Wayne Jones,Jr. 1425 Beacon Way South 350 Renton Avenue South Lakeridge Development Inc. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 PO Box 146 Renton WA 98057 Ms.Agnes Koestl Mr. &Mrs.Ken Kraght Ms.Ruth Larson 428 Renton Avenue South 527 Renton Avenue South Renton Hill Community Association. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 714 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Randy Lamke Ms.Elizabeth Lewis Mr. &Mrs.Dwayne Liston 415 Cedar Avenue South 1525 South 6th Street 17703— 114th Place SE Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 ViN AVERY= Address Labels - t Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Ms.Barbara Lux Mr.Robert Lux Mr.Carl Maas • 1412 South 9th Street 1410 South 7th Street Ms.Kathy McGatlin Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 1724 SE 7th Court Renton WA 98055 Mr. Louis Malesis Ms.Mary MacDonald Mr. &Mrs.Michael Mack 1718 SE 7th Court 802 Cedar Avenue South 906 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. Keith Moberg Mr. Eric Mastor Mr. &Mrs.Don Miles 627 High Avenue South 808 Renton Avenue South 532 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Roseanne Nolan Mr. &Mrs. Clint Morse Marianne Nicol/Mark Johnson 2048 SE 8`h Place 525 High Avenue South 316 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms. Cathy O'Neill Ms.Elsa Norris Mr.Bentley Oaks 575 High Avenue South 1513 South 7th Street 1321 South 7th Street Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Paul Ossorio Mr.&Mrs.Deone Perlatti Mr. Gino Petralia 708 Renton Avenue South 1520 South 9th Street 813 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Janice Potter/Mr.Dwight Potter Ms.Josephine Potter Ms.Paula Provin Falcon Ridge Association 1314 South 7th Street 712 Renton Avenue South 2411 SE 8`h Place Renton WA 98055-3065 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Dana Reiman Mr.Wayne Rossman Mr. George Salurmini 1410 Beacon Way South 533 Grant Avenue South 519 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs. Slapnick Mr. &Mrs.Louis Sutter Mr.Rick Thibodeau 531 Grant Avenue South 721 High Street 1000 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs. Lynn Thrasher Mr.Mario Tonda Joe Vanderpool/Elsa Norris 904 Grant Avenue South Mr.Victor Tonda 1513 South 7th Street Renton WA 98055 1308 Beacon Way South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 %A AVERY Address Label..: L a see Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Mr.Jack Wardell Mr.&Mrs.Larry Welch Mr.James Wilhoit 523 Renton Avenue South 310 Renton Avenue South 910 Grant Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.&Mrs.Rich Yarbrough Mr.Dean Yasuda Mr.Dick Zugschwerdt 338 Renton Avenue South 2058 SE 8th Place 802 Grand Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.&Mrs.Bill Collins Mr.Kevin Oleson Mr. &Mrs.Mark DeWitt 420 Cedar Avenue South Renton School District#403 501 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Transportation Department Renton,WA 98058 1220 North 4th Street Renton WA 98055 Mark&Kimberly K.Mehlhaff David&Victoria Miles Rod Kunnanz 532 Grant Avenue South 1510 South 6th Place 810 High Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Marty L.Zander Dan O'Rourk Debra Jones 806 High Avenue South 501 Cedar Avenue South 1800 SE 7th Court Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 PO Box 146 Renton WA 98057 A.F. and Nancy Alexander Steve Johnson Robert Mountjoy 1518 Cedar Avenue South 1514 Beacon Way South 810 High Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Debra Goltiani Darlene Moore Jason Donahue 811 Jones Ave.South 1511.So.9th St. 419 Cedar Ave.So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Newell/McSherry Elizabeth Prescott Mr.&Mrs. Gerald Hanger 815 Renton Ave. So. 435 Cedar Ave. So. 905 Jones Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ruth Helsey Rachel Johnson/Mykel Papke Resident Marvin Wright 620 Grant Ave. So. 707 Renton Ave.So. 604 Grant Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Camron Smith Grant Anderson Roger Knutson 2140 SE 8th Place 426 Cedar Ave. So. 805 Jones Ave.So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 nAVERY= Address ►_abe!s _as_, 5t5 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Mr.&Mrs.Richard Weitz Mr.&Mrs.Johnson Hugo Chaves 718 Renton Ave. So. 1333 Beacon Way So. - 326 Cedar Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Gilroy Paul Lammer Jack Holt 1316 So. 10th Street 15234 SE 176`h Pl. 1517 So. 6th St. Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98055 Resident Residents Mr. &Mrs.Mike Fulfer 300 Renton Ave. So. 316 Renton Ave.So. 1729 SE Th Court Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Egan Mary Breda Jeff Fettinger/Martin Cibis 810 Grant Ave. So. 900 Grant Ave.So. 604 Grant Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Steve Briggs Tomac Patricia Gilroy 600 Grant Ave. So., 912 Grant Ave.So. 535 Renton Ave.So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Melanie Thompson Resident Resident 1307 So.9`h 626 Renton Ave.So. 1724 SE 7th Court Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Resident Betsy Munson Norman Perry 801 Jones Ave. So. 623 Cedar Avenue So. 1224 South 7`h Street Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Nancy Liston 1518 Beacon Way So. Renton WA 98055 rill\ ®\1=731./ Aririracc I anal:. I ncnr �9 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® • Ann M. Gygi ';rerinifer Steig Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson Peterson Consulting Engineering500 Galland Building 4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, 1221 Second Avenue Suite 200 Seattle,WA 98101-2925 Kirkland, WA 98033 Ryan Fike Dana Calhoun Bennett Development 433 Cedar Avenue S 9 Lake Bellevue Dr., Ste. 100-A Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98004 Larry Hobbs Transportation Planning& Bill Collins Engineering,Inc. 420 Cedar Avenue S 2223 112th Avenue NE, Ste. 101 Renton,WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98004 Mark McGinnis Jeff Schultek Geotech Consultants 613 Grant Avenue S 13256 NE 20`h St.,#16 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98005 Linda McManus 530 Renton Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 John Nelson Peterson Consulting Engineering 4030 Lake Washington Blvd. NE, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Mark Mehlhaff 532 Grand Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Wendy Fulfer 1729 SE 7th Ct. Renton, WA 98055 Mike Fulfer 1729 SE 7th Ct. Renton, WA 98055 Mark Johnson 316 Renton Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Address Label- Laser 51 APPEAL HEARING EXAMINER '^ = CITY OF RENTON WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING�� EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY UNCIL FILE NO. La/900- /7g , Am p G Vi400 Pia ecC FEBO a�� '/ A 3 RECEIVED APPLICATION NAME: 7F/yrD,,v //i tA C pm 44 ON/T y Aso('iA7 r it OFFiCE The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated PA) 20 D/ 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: /S2 Name: 70 1-1/ Address: 7/4/,1/ /-71 Address: V4/ y&_ ,-/ 5c' -OW 1 oti GJi L 9 &)4 Telephone No. 4 2$ z,s'� 729 2 Telephone No. oz90 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: �1 / % t2 pi) `7N/ g R ef,9 ,POGO tt ivk-IY r ynz Correction: CONCLUSIONS: • No. Error: �5 L,/gr1 O /4) 7-16- gTrR6N5.� W2 vn'1 R-,vr—s Correction: OTHER: No. Error: /95 4./5rf. >i ri/E ,}rri4c:II z2 0OcuF'1 iF.}TS Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF-ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following. relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: ADDRESS AND RECOMMEND SOLUTION Tr Other THE CONVERGENT SIGHT DISTANCE PROBLEM IN THE 500 BLOCKOF RENTON AVENUE SOUTH, OR DENY PLAT REQUEST UNTIL THIS AND TRAFFIC PROBLEM IS RESOLVED. PF z-e -o1 App ant/Representati e Signature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-S-110F, for specific procedures. : • - . . . : CITE _ F RENTON . • bat. Hearing Examiner . •-• • Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • February 12,2001 • • Ruth Larson,President • • Renton Hill Community Association: 714 High Avenue S Renton,WA 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration,Renton Heritage-Hill •• • Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings• I_PA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF • Dear Ms:Larson: This office received a request for reconsideration regarding this matter and the response follows. First,this office does not disconntthat there will be impacts on the community,both short-lived impacts and.long-term impaets. The short-lived(which itself is a relative term) impacts will be the concrete impacts of development,-including construction traffic and noise. The long-term . ' . impacts will be increased traffic and noise frpntnewjegidentS:, That does not mean that those impacts will create an overall untoward inipaCeiS required for a SEPA determination of significance. - . • • This office will generally:address'the concerns-in thentanner used by the request. • Page 8,#21:The issue was the OM-posed reduction in hauling truck trips due to a change in : • ., grading plans. The applicant proposed to more closely balance the cut and fill: The change in grading plans is now considered part of the application and cannot be altered without submitting a • new application. The party that ultimately develops the site is not relevant to the permit as reviewed andaltered. The ultimate developer would be bound by the application as it was reviewed and approved. Stafford Crest as well as.:anniiiber of large apartment complexes have : all resulted in construction traffic similar to if not larger than the construction traffic anticipated. It is not so significant as to require the preparation of ail environmental impact statement -• • Page 8,-#22: The overall impacts of additional traffic including LOS were considered by the • documents and bolstered by the testimony: There will be additional traffic,and there will be a fraction of a second delay at the Signal-controlled intersection which will not be noticeable:-:The LOS for the various intersections,which is currently excellent,will not be changed other than that fractional delaY. There is no question that the hill and its various routes are quite steep;but the entire record demonstrates that traffic can negotiate it satisfaotorily. •; Page 9,#24:Again,the record demonstrates that the hill is now negotiated by current residents and can be similarly negotiated by new residents.' Staff supported the applicant's studies that the sight distance is acceptable. The record is closed. The appellant had the burden at the hearing or hearings and the information submitted is not timely at this point • 1901,--2001 • - 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 - (425) 430:6515 . . • , • •Ruth Larson Page 2 Page 10, #34: The availability of dial-up service is not crucial to whether or not the subject proposal has more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. Page 10, #38: As noted in the determination,roadway maintenance is determined on need,and if the roadway deteriorates, it will be scheduled for repair whatever the surface or subsurface conditions. Page 12,#9: Sight distance was discussed above. Alone or coupled with the other issues presented on appeal did not present evidence necessary to overcome the burden on the appellants in this decision. • • Pages 17 and 22 both reflect the minutes and the summarize_d testimony. This office will not comment on testimony. Page 24,#18:The construction of the overpassenrieans,that access to the hill is not completely blocked by passing railroad trains as'ithad been,In the past: It:may be inconvenient to reach or -leave the hill,but no more so than for other residents of South•Renton when trains run through town. Page 24,#25: The City hasa`set of adopted policies on how'trattic-is,to be evaluated. Those . policies were utilized,and there capacity tkirdidiellie'traffc. As a matter of policy review,. • this office attempted to reduce traffic impacts to som e..extent by reducinkg the total number of lots. This recommendation to he,Council vwenfbeyond here:technical issues and dealt with the more personal impacts of the traffic on those residYents'along m the commute route. This recommendation also went against stated City Council policy tt at density reduction by the Hearing Examiner was not generally appropriate. It seemed that in these circumstances,the balancing of impacts • • demanded a reduction evenif that reduction was modest:,-'. t • Page 25.,#26: There will be more traffic.=That is cleaaly'state I."fie e way LOS is calculated • shows that there is capacity for more cars;_and ihat'"LQS will not suffer. Add one new home to an existing block and one neighbor will notice.,the change.-,That,again, is not refuted. There is no, . doubt that residents will notice more traffic. There`will be even less traffic with•the reduction of the plat to 50 homes from the proposed 57 homes. The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and did not indicate any new concerns over serving the existing community. Page 25,.#28: Many areas of the City have less than standard roads,both in terms of width and in terms of grade. Residents on West Hill above the airport have similar roads,and those iri Windor Hills and those near Group Health have steep grades. Residents living along Lake Washington have rail blocked access and one lane roads. The City is either blessed or cursed by interesting:- terrain features.' The subject site was clearly reclassified to R 8to allow up to eight dwelling units per acre. That density was reduced somewhat by the recommendation to the City Council.:to allow a 50 lot plat. If the City Council chooses,it may modify its adopted policies and/or-change the Zoning: This office has worked within the laws that govern_this proposed development-afthis: • time. • - • • • • • Ruth Larson Page 3 • • In conclusion,nothing short of leveling the hill will resolve the purported problems. But the record does not show that developing the subject site will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the overall environment. The technical analysis as well as the experience gained by reviewing the accident history and habits of Renton Hill residents demonstrates that this development can be accommodated,although it will affect,but not adversely.(as used in SEPA) affect,the current residents who live on Renton Hill. As this office noted at the public hearing, there is no doubt that if some future development were proposed;these new residents will be right • alongside the current residents attempting to preserve the quality of life esteemed by those now living on Renton Hill..That does not mean that new development does not fit or that it cannot be accommodated: The record reflects that it can be accommodated. • • In closing,there is no reason to alter or reverse either the original decision on the SEPA appeal or- the Recommendation to the City Council to approve the plat. • Since this office is aware that an appeal`has;alreadybeer fled with the City Council and since • this letter did not change the original decision there is no reason to extend the appeal period. If this office can provide any_iadditional.assistance;'please;feel free'to write. Sincerely, •'µ • • Fred J.Kaufman `` q Hearing Examiner = V x,. . FJK:jt • cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner h= Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer=; Larry Warren,City Attorney "`':r7 �� r . Neil Watts,Development Services., • Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services . City Clerk Parties of Record • CITY OF RENTON i :oa 4►m FEB 0 8 200 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Numbers: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF Dated January 25, 2001 Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Date: February 7, 2001 • February 7, 2001 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Request for Reconsideration File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 8, #21: "The original plans called for a substantial grade and fill efort...the number of truck trips would probably be reduced to approximately 750 trips. The original estimate would have generated approximately 3,700 trips." The applicant is not going to build or develop this property. This probable reduction of truck trips is not included as a recommendation, and probable is not binding to whoever does develop and build. (Probable: "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur...page 11; 4.c.) The number of trips generated by the construction itself (including but not limited to Cement trucks, Lumber trucks, construction workers daily trips, Sheet rock, roofing, and etc) are not addressed. Page 8, #22: "The fact is, transportation impact analysis including LOS information and sight distance information shows that the existing road system can handle the additional traffic including the additional approximately 50 to 60 vehicle trips that would be generated during the peak hours." The transportation impact analysis did not include sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was -- -- done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So., the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include 1 • factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety"... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are not included regarding the problem sight area. Page 9, #24: The technical analysis would appear to show that at normal driving sitting position, the view is not significantly impaired. This statement leads to the request to add an addendum to EXHZO, including photographs. This technical analysis is not complete and therefore not accurate. Page 10, #34: While there is no public bus route serving the hill, residents can apparently use a dial-up service for vans. This statement is in error. "Dial-up service is restricted to the disabled and in some circumstances qualified seniors. The senior center will pick-up seniors, twice per week for lunch and to shop at two designated stores. - - Page 10, #38: "Renton Avenue was checked and it is four inches of asphalt over crushed rock." John Giuliani (see page 18) stated that when Renton Ave was repaved, he personally observed that all the asphalt was removed down to the dirt. New asphalt was placed directly on top of the dirt with no gravel base underneath to anchor it. When the City of Renton checked Renton Ave So, they drilled three holes and found crushed rock. Unfortunately they did not ask Mr. Giuiani where he watched the asphalt placed without any foundation. The sample holes were not in the area Mr. Giuiani observed. It would have taken one phone call to establish the location of the problem. The City's transportation people chose not to call therefore did not locate the problem area. Page 12, #9: The various analyses demonstrate that the LOS will not be substantially changed. The analyses also demonstrate that while there are--- 2 some constraints due to the steepness of the hill and the narrowness of the roadway, but that the additional traffic can be safely accommodated As with page 8, #22...The transportation impact analysis did not study sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So, the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety" ... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are certainly not included regarding the sight distance area. Page 17, John Nelson: Mr. Nelson stated that as a result of his analysis and actually driving the roads in question, he did not think there is any - significant problem with sight distances on the roads in Renton Hill. Mr. Nelson did not include the convergence of traffic in his analysis. His analysis concerned one car. Many Residents of Renton Hill testified to the problems with sight distance on Renton Hill. Surely the testimony of those who deal with the convergence zone on a daily basis should carry more weight than someone who "actually drove the roads in question"a few times and then did analysis on a single vehicle. Please refer to the requested addendum to Exhibit 20. Page 22, Mr. Nelson: ...graphical measurements were made on 7th Avenue from the project site all the way down to Renton Avenue S and Cedar to the bottom of the hill. These were graphical measurements made on the computer. On-the-ground fieldwork was done all the way up Renton Avenue S. The Renton Hill Community Association has requested (no less than twice) that a road engineer make an on site physical determination of 3' • grade percent be done at the 500 block of Renton Ave. S. A determination of grade percent using a topographic map does not provide the accuracy required for an exhibit that is given weight in an Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearing. The on-the-ground fieldwork was done only to provide measurement information and line of sight for a single vehicle. Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete. Findings. Page 24, #18: Reconstruction and realignment of I-405 during the last decade provided a second crossing of I-405, and both crossings were elevated and therefore removed the railroad crossing. This statement is in error. The realignment of I-405 did not provide an elevated crossing over the Railroad crossing on Mill Ave. S. The elevation only applies to the crossing of I-405. Daily the Spirit of Washington Dinner train passes thru the Mill Ave. S./Houser Way area at the foot of Renton Hill and blocks access to the Hill (twice for lunch and twice for dinner). Rail deliveries to The Boeing Company, Paccar, and Kenworth are all made on this Railroad track. Page 24-25, #25: Staff noted that the City anticipated an increase in overall traffic of approximately 50 percent, and that the 25 percent increase was - - reasonable. If the City of Renton Staff is anticipating and increase of 50 % in overall traffic — NO plat or permit should be approved until the Staff makes sure Cities roads are adequate to handle the increase. There should be some accountability to the tax paying residents who are forced to "adjust"to the amount of traffic generated by new housing and those who pass thru the City to get to the County. Inadequate City streets should have been considered at the same time the growth management act was enacted. That the Cities and the Counties did not figure this out at that time doesn't necessarily mean the problem should not be addressed now. Perhaps a building moratorium would give local governments time to resolve this problem. Page 25, #26: The traffic analysis shows that the major intersections sewing this site, Main Avenue S and S 4th Street, Houser Way and Mill, Cedar and S3rd and Renton Avenue and S 7th will suffer no degradation in LOS. • 4 . • In view of the fact that #18 on page 24 is in error and that the questions raised in a December 11, 2000 letter written by Keith Moberg ( see paragraph 8) to the Hearing Examiner have not been addressed, this item should be reviewed. Copy of letter attached. Page 25, #28: Staff did suggest that new residents would have to adjust to the conditions of access just as other residents on the hill have adjusted in the past, including other new residents. Adjustment to a problem does not make the problem go away. CONCLUSIONS: In reading the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner in the Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings it becomes clear that the safety issues have not been resolved. Item 14 admits that if access to this project from Puget Drive was granted "the narrow and steeps streets would not be a issue and the plat could be built to full density". The Hearing Examiner has admitted the problem is bad enough to reduce the number of houses built. The Hearing Examiner has not met the traffic requirements. There is no evidence that the reduction of houses built will reduce the impacts. There are no adequate provisions for traffic that would indicate this plat is in the Public Interest. The approval of this development would leave the residents of Renton Hill with a traffic/safety problem that is neither addressed or resolved. RCW 58.17.010 states:..The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways;. (complete text attached) RCW 58.17.110 states:..(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall 5 determine: (a) if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication...(complete text attached) Neither the City or the Hearing Examiner have fulfilled the requirements of the attached RCW's Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson, President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. Renton Wa. 98055 • - 1 LETTER FROM KEITH MOBERG (see para. 8) December 11, 2000 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton I am writing concerning the proposed Bennett Homes development on Renton Hill. I have attended the Bennett Homes informational meeting, Renton Hill Homeowners Assoc. meetings and the Nov. 12, 2000 meeting in your council chambers. While some questions have been answered I have a few . of my own. I reside at 627 High Ave. S. less than 2 blocks from the proposed building site. The sheer number of proposed houses and the traffic associated with them has me questioning the safety and capacity of the existing road system. During construction which has been estimated at two years plus, there will be an additional semi trucks and trailers and various heavy equipment. Though you have received many written letters and voice concerns I have my own. As a professional firefighter I respond out of a Station that has over 5,000 runs per year. Time is critical on responses. .. The steepness of hills like Renton Hill slow extremely heavy vehicles like fire apparatus, trucks and heavy equipment. Due to the unique parking conditions on Renton Ave. S. and Cedar Ave. S. the ability of large vehicles to pass another is impossible. If my house were on fire or a family member was in a medical emergency these delays could be and are deadly. Magnify response times considerably if Renton Fire Department, Station 11 is out of quarters. Who in the City is willing to take responsibility for these delays? My next concern is the traffic light at the bottom of Renton Hill on Mill Ave. So. Presently it allows only three vehicles to proceed on a green light. A semi-truck and trailer equal the length of three cars. The new stop sign on Mill next to Station 11 and by old City Hall has traffic backed up to the intersection of Mill and Houser. After construction 57 new homes will be added to our hill. That is 9.55 trips per day per house according to your impact statement. 540 trips generated on top of the 200 plus households equals an increase of 25% in homes and traffic on a hill to steep for buses and described as a large cul de sac in a 1978 traffic study. My concern has been and stilt is the increased traffic on our small neighborhood roads. If egress for the development was East of the pipeline barrier at Phillip Arnold Park I doubt you would have the problems you have now. Bennett Homes in their first meeting with our Assoc. admitted without the ability to access Renton Hill from the West, they weren't interested in the development. Though the planned development is not popular I realize the right of the School District to sell their property. I would question how the 10 acres was zoned with no one on the hill notified of any zoning change. My solution would be to rezone to larger building lots with fewer homes and have all access come from the East while maintaining the existing road block. With these or similar requirements met I scarcely believe you would have any major complaints. In conclusion Renton Hill is a unique neighborhood unlike any other in the City. The safety and character are prized by every resident. Change is evident but no small community should experience a 25% increase in size and population without the same percentage increase in road improvements and safety considerations. Thank you for your attention. Keith Moberg Presented to the Hearing Examiner during the hearing December 12, 2000, by Ruth Larson. Reference to RCW 58.17.110 (not new material) I would like to dispel some of the myths concerning Renton Hill. We did not oppose the River Ridge development. We welcomed it. None of the houses North of the Seattle water pipeline were on the City sewer system until the River Ridge developer applied for a permit that included a sewer line from this property to a connection on Renton Ave. So.All of the homes North of the pipeline from High Ave. So. Grant Ave. So. and on South Oh were on septic systems. All were old and extremely high maintenance. River • Ridge allowed residents to hookup to the City Sewer System. That also allowed four new homes to be built and three or four more are in the planning stages to be built on the North side of the pipeline. Renton Hill did not oppose the Falcon Ridge development. The original plan of Falcon Ridge called for it's main access from the Seattle pipeline road and the removal of the gate on the pipeline. When the plan was changed to access from Royal Hills Drive, there was nothing to oppose. When Falcon Ridge requested a second gate be placed at the South end of the pipeline road to prevent late night disturbances and illegal activity on the road, Renton Hill absolutely agreed and the gate was installed. The City of Renton seems to have adopted an "oh well" attitude to the increase of 25% more traffic on Renton Hill without acknowledging the 25% loss of safety factor. The City has covered themselves by the statement of possible coal mine problems with a rider on the titles of each property. We will hold the City responsible for any condition caused by this loss of safety. RCW 58.17.110 states (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. We want to know just how Renton Hill resident's interest will be served. The City of Renton television channel 21 has a statement listing the organizational structure. The final statement of this structure states, "Renton Citizens are of course at the top of our organizational chart." We will see. ' REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 1 RCW 58.17.010 Purpose. The legislature finds that the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and schoolgrounds and other public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and egress; to provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed subdivisions which conform to zoning standards and local plans and policies; to adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state; and to require uniform monumenting of land subdivisions and conveyancing by accurate legal description. [1981 c 293 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 1.] NOTES: Reviser's note: Throughout this chapter, the phrase "this act" has been changed to "this chapter. " "This act" [1969 ex.s. c 271] also consists of amendments to RCW 58 . 08 . 040 and 58 .24 . 040 and the repeal of RCW 58 . 16. 010 through 58 . 16. 110 . Severability -- 1981 c 293: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. " [1981 c 293 § 16. ] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.01 O.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 2 RCW 58.17 .110 Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication -- Factors to be considered -- Conditions for approval -- Finding -- Release from damages. _ (1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways,, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82. 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 .02 . 050 through 82 .02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners . (3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than two acres and the donor has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased individual of good character, the city, town, or county legislative body must adopt the designated name. [1995 c 32 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 52; 1989 c 330 § 3; 1974 ex.s. c 134 § 5; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 11.] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.110.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE OF WASHING ON Page 2 of 2 NOTES: Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A. 900 and 36.70A. 901 . 02/01/2001 •, • •r,.•-r- /:00. Yrm• rEB 08 2001 RECEIVED .;LERK'S OFF;C Request to add as addendum to Exhibit EXH2O Or given Exhibit status and Numbered Accordingly This request is made because Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete but weight has been given to it in the Findings and Conclusions of the Hearing Examiners Report, Dated January 25, 2001. Submitted by: Renton Hill Community Association February 7, 2001 February 7, 2001 Heritage Renton Hill Stopping sight distance exhibit Renton Hearing examiners EXH 20 Request for adding the following information as an addendum to EXH2O (or assigning a new exhibit number to this information). Reason for request: This exhibit was not available for review until the hearing and could not be addressed adequately without a reasonable amount of time to study it. This exhibit is incomplete, as it does not include convergence information or measurements. A great deal of weight was given to this exhibit in the determination of the feasibility of this project, we are requesting a review of exhibit EXH 20 and the admission of the enclosed documents to the project file as an addendum. EXH 20 has one vehicle heading North on Renton Ave. S. There is no need for this driver to stop, as there are no cars shown going South on Renton Ave. S. The convergence point of two cars is the critical piece of information missing in EXH 20.The sight distance problem is not great by the time you reach the crest of Renton Ave. S. (where the vehicle in this exhibit is located), it is prior to the crest for drivers coming both up and going down the hill at this location at the same time. On Saturday February 3, 2001,.at 2pm, the following people measured sight distance on Renton Ave. S. Bill Collins, Keith Moberg, Bill Larson and Ruth Larson. Starting at the North property line of 531 Renton Ave. S. we marked, with chalk every 10 feet both North and South. The camera was placed on the end of a length of wood 3.50' long and with the wood placed on the roadbed; pictures were taken at 3' 6" height (the eye height used on exhibit EXH 20 plus one inch from the base of the camera to the lens). Keith Moberg held a 14' board marked in one-foot increments. Bill Larson was the photographer, Bill Collins checked location on the down hill side and Ruth Larson checked location on the up hill side. The first picture was taken 20' apart, 10 feet up the hill and 10 feet down the hill. Every 20 feet (10 up and 10 down) a picture was taken. The last picture was at taken at 300 feet apart. Bill Larson at the 3'7"height (with the camera) could not see Keith Moberg at all by 280 feet apart. Keith Moberg is 5' 9" tall. A car at the Keith Moberg location and a car at the Bill Larson location would not see each other. If each were traveling 25 miles per hour per hour, according to exhibit 18, it would take 145 feet each to stop. That is 10 feet each more than available. This is the convergence point. While appreciating the fact that Mr. Nelson is a Civil Engineer and much weight must be given to his statements, if his exhibit is not complete then it should not be considered to contain all of the information needed to make a decision on the sight distance/convergence problem on Renton Ave. So. Please place into the file the photographs presented. We are also submitting two overlays of Exhibit EXH 20. Our position is further clarified by placing an overlay at the 300-foot mark on the far right side of this exhibit, lining up the vehicle on the road line (to the right of the 3% mark). This alters the line of sight a great deal and more clearly shows the problem. You can take this further by placing the second overlay, reversed, on the road line at either the 145' mark and/or the 170' line, using a ruler to indicate line of sight from the drivers perspective . This demonstrates the problem with two vehicles converging. The overlay was not altered in any way, nor was the exhibit. Please place into the file the overlays and copy of EXH 20. Requested by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson,...President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. Renton Wa, 98055 .• . . . . ., t ''. . .. r . .4 . 4 r.}1... ..‘. . • ..... a i • :.• . „ . .. . . '''.2•7-'-'--.11 4: "-“. '-• "'--114, Zos.1 -'-'7-7:, 1:s. .' " -- . ,• . t. iliT., -- Ill .1 . •.• ' -,'5. 7 +A 54., --' ! - '').` "....-.... i,... i •.4.' ! ..., • '' • • •' . . _i 5 • 4. . . . - 1 '• - ft. - . - a. I' • ' - ' 4•° 4 • o• • . 4. - --- . " . ,.,. . . . . ••• ' a'"5 ••, .41...' • •• . .. ' .4.6• '50 '' • ' ;; : ••. • 1.! . .. ,„.• 4: • •:' '':. 4. , 0 141 V. . . . .. • . • . . . ,... .. . . .. . Ell .• .•• • • IN . . • • ...1 : -,----- -7i ....- . t. • •-•..... 4 A$1 r- j I'l I' . .... ,..... ,. ; r •• ,.. •. . . •I \ i_.1,• . •-:. • . i_...,... ., _ • • i . ..... lb "...4)• -5' . • ... .' .• 3. : .---•—_ ,' 4.* • 15. -. • . I .- .i . ..L . •-'• ; : • -di.• -4°.,. . • -•t ... - . .1' a • • •• • . • . --,. '4'.', •. . _.. ".:-••••• PI' -,• : • 4 .. 1 . - . . , gd-.2 / ,791g ,. .c... ...,*iv ! ..,... ...%. ‘.....". • . . • , • . , . ' : '..• 'a . ..: .. . ,:•,:.,; -Fr.;, Aigim.r • -Ar...• 7 -", • ' --- : s ;J • --r---- -,.....- 1 ' kl".j."-•:-/i 1 i,*, •-•--, - — • : 041— •'... - , •:,, .; . 4'4 • •- . • .1--.• • • -•,.=.• . . . - . • ••• • • . . ..:!--.-:- ' • • , . .•••;- . V.. . • . • • - - - '.•:••. "LI . . .• . .. :..•.„ . -.3 •F- • . -- / 00 •,,, ^ _ • - • . • ' , • - . .. ..: :'''..:. -.: . '• •• . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . • • •• ' • .. .. '.._,..:•*._ ),-...:'••• ' * • . • . . .•. .• . • - . . . _ . , ' • . -'•.—.''''' • • .. . . • - . . . . ... •• . •• . • .. - • .. • . •- .... ' • • ' . . . . _ • . . . - • . ... • ••''' 's' ..--"••••••`-'4..i',P.,:‘,'..:,,,4;!.,j4.'•;1...--,..-.1:,:.1.!.-,'..7,,•.',',.:' ` : : '-'••'." - . - ' %:.-:c.:::...-:.:,'..„••••;•?,i ..-....::'.• -....*--,;z:-..- -)A-.4.-:-.---..Y.,,..T..i...,,,,...k.-'...;,;T.:-..--..:0.:?,—--,••••- . • - . . .. • —---..,,••=mr. gr--37.,. -•:..'..r. . -:-,=.. -.....,•1-,.....!--•••••• ::.,. ... . . ., . -- •.,. •.0‘..-..•,;,.,...- • .......---... — , ,-----.4. . ..1". • • ,. r,.....U.-.Z.C • ti '•"." -;;IMIII*2—:'haZ •J : .. . - . •; • •IS ''t kr s' .7;..e..... ..... • • ..• -, • :,- • • I ,"."." ... lirwt I ..--'1. el , •`.4 '. •. ---- .::.. --" • ...- . • . . • . . . .r-y. • • • .. - --.. t •• . . . • . ...lb•...'`'. ... •• . , 4.0 56.. ,,... . • . .1 ... • ' •;i... :; •• .. 11 • . . t % ' ...AO e...6 ‘ 1 '. •,, 1-• t, -% ..j ,. • "V .37 1 . '< t: . I:I' �' . • /• ; r"v^"',' I. '7iJ ir''rC i r a ; - 14 `s I xs / { r 7 .r H rrt`"fit �: L'k►�I / \\ ,'e�,` r (1 �: i r 7 i.• i T, a •, Y �r r 4'1 1` J j d �� rid a r r ~+� 7 i7 ,:off" • :;; 1 r , � 1.' r•` ,' ^x••��, t }A; i ,Y try rr .> +r 1 ryF •. .,.,_ 1ir;•. u 1.G f 1^'I ' $Iferr'} • y. t..icg i I r , • `1 G fiI I �, ` t .tom'fi r Y. I— , ,r• it Z 1,.)'{ j r :,,,j_ ?i' ,ill' �LV.!}�:a . , ,1. ' '�f.� t4•4 it 'i (Z4.S I .. ' 1 li;;;;Zif.11-':....,1.:'..:''',.:';''''•::'- f• — : .. . :.,....• • ..• . • • • s f'� w . 1 . • 6.1 br ) ... , 1• - . • • wT.�..r , �. . (t. . - • '..t : t•,, .0.• r•I z-r--••--->' •-j ---s .--,-s .--, -- . , . ... - " • - .14 -••••' 1 '.- .. ... .a. 1P 1 • \.. . .... ..., , - •• - • ... . '• . . _ • ' -', ..... .m. - . ..... i 1 3'r. ' • • .. , , 62 0 r.- .-..-i-:; ', .I . 1 ( ( 3 6-,7 •> , . . '-- -• • • . .' '..•• . •.-,- ... _... ...- . ., - , •^ • . . . . . ' . . • . - • • : s" ''. „:..r.,:"' '.'-f,;,r''' - '•••,',",,, ,. '." • , . • . ' . '..*. -.,..-., ' *4....---,7.---,.".•-•;• ' ,'_.•:.,"-, ' , . '—. • ' • -..,... _.,- ..-1:.;-.7%.,4::-.1.'.:;,,S.'itt.•-••"1' 'f.`. • . • , '• . :'-.': • ' • - s, 1-',:'.$.i'.71';',:',..'.'•,'.:,;;:..'.' ::' " • . . : .,,,....---.1:0"'s •• ---.."--- .:=-•-•- ,. ----:'.`' , t.•'44.'-'D' . :;,^. -:' • ...,.;' '_-.' .. - ... . . • • ^ - 4 l Ir. i . 1111%iii .....r r i ..,„, , .. • r -., ... •r''''I....7, . , . - •p• .r.' . 009111 / • . f li I./ il . •,- , .• t • . 3J0 .S' 'vied .. ,....4,, ....,4„, ,--..•. ., 4:..,,,, .... 4 h .z , °t Ll N ,,. • • • • ;� • j , • - - = - • • _. • r""-- . . . , •=1. .1=b. • • .0.. /L11. "CC(L, =0513 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • tEM. .10 .t. . • ••• •••• r • 061:2 • 449 61d I lie • ,. . ,,, g,,,,,,---1, c ., 1 . _., , . . . ., . , , III ' ,, Please remove EXH 20 and two overlays from the envelope. Place one overlay on EXH 20 with the vehicle placed beneath the bold 300 at the right of the exhibit, lining up the broken line (that indicates the road level) to the right of the —3%. Using a ruler at the eye level of the vehicle, note the site line. Place the second overlay (reversed reversed so the vehicle is going up hill) at the 145' mark, again liningup the broken line. Check the site line with a ruler. This visual is more representative of the convergent area sight distance problem. -'1 ' \ . g Vrin ` 4 a 4.,....... ,_ . .„ . ._.,,, .. • :-...,„, ,,,,,, . , , : . . , 8„, ..,.... • �vI II it II ,1 ' 111 11il 4 11\ , iiIIIIMMILIANIMONNIL set:. falkalleat4 . r I' r .-•••• - • ...1 ,.: . -ti4,;jifos•-.1. . fi:.;'; 11b • January 25 ,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION - APPELLANT: Ruth Larson Appeal of ERC's Determination re Heritage Renton Hill File No.: LUA00-149,AAD LOCATION: Renton Hill, southeast of intersection of Beacon Way S with SE 7th Ct, Jones Ave S,and South 7th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivide an approximately 450,846 square feet(10.35 acre) property into 57 lots suitable for detached, single family homes SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA determination PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 14,2000 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,November 14,2000,at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: - , Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Yellow land use file, LUA00- the Examiner's letter setting the hearing date,a map, 053,PP,ECF,containing the original application,proof photographs,and other documentation pertinent to the of posting,proof of publication and other appeal. documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.4: Photo of Renton Ave S Exhibit No.5: Photo of telephone pole 6" from curb Exhibit No.6: Photo of telephone pole 12-1/2" from curb Exhibit No.7: -Photo of curb and gutters Exhibit No.8: Photo of garbage truck on street Exhibit No.9: Photo of garbage truck on street Exhibit No. 10: Photo of dip in street Exhibit No. 11: Photo of fire hydrant Exhibit No. 12: Ruth Larson's testimony Exhibit No13: Aerial photo from City Archives Exhibit No. 14: Plat map Exhibit No. 15: Phase I Environmental Site Exhibit No. 16: Jennifer Steig letter to Bennett Assessment Development • Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 2 Parties present: Appellant: Ruth Larson Renton Hill Community Association 714 High Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Representing applicant: Ann M. Gygi,Attorney Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Applicant: Ryan Fike Bennett Development 9 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100-A Bellevue, WA 98005 Representing City of Renton: Zanetta Fontes, City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Larson, appellant herein, reviewed each item contained in her written appeal of the ERC's Staff Report dated October 17,2000, and explained the reasons for her objections in each case. Particular emphasis was given to Renton Avenue South. Ms. Larson used photos to show the close proximity of telephone poles to the curbs,the narrowness of the street,the dips in the street and the tendency of garbage trucks to drive toward the center of the street. She explained her concerns regarding safety issues when large trucks are using the street considering the narrowness of the street,the steep grade, and the limited sight distances. Becky Lamke, 415 Cedar Ave S,Renton, WA 98055 expressed concern that the number of trips per day per single family household has been underestimated,based on informal surveys of her neighbors. Ms. Lamke questioned exactly what the landscaping would consist of in the 15-foot buffer along the north property :. boundary. She concluded by stating that the construction vehicles should be required to come onto the site off of Puget Drive. It is not considered safe for busses to come up the hill, so it should not be safe for large trucks to do so. Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 gave an _ overview of the nature of the project, its current status, and its progress through the ERC. Regarding,the'reason for the setbacks on Lot#35,Ms. Higgins stated the geotechnical engineer's report commented that the slopes at the rear of this lot are excessive. They recommended that the setback at the rear of Lot#35 be increased from • Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF ___ January 25, 2001 Page 3 20 to 25 feet in order to further to protect the slope. Using a photograph from the City Archives, she clarified why an exemption to the requirement in the Critical Areas Ordinance that slopes above a certain grade be protected was granted to the project. Ms. Higgins also addressed the issues of groundwater,responsibility for landscaping,regulation of fences, and parks constructed on the property. Ms. Higgins discussed the issue of Metro service on Renton Hill. She also explained the State of Washington Growth Management Act requirements and how the City is required to plan for housing. The City Council has committed to provide as much single family housing as possible and not meet their target with apartments. Regarding the requirement that a note be placed on the face of the plat about former mining activities, Ms. Higgins stated this is the City's way of insuring that a property owner is made aware of a potentially hazardous situation. Mining activity took place throughout the city, and there are very rudimentary maps of where these mine shafts might be.The note on the plat alerts the potential home owner to seek the consultation of a structural engineer and choose the construction method most appropriate for the site. The appeal hearing was adjourned at 12:30 pm.,to be continued on Thursday,November 16 at 9:00 a.m. ******************************** The continued appeal hearing opened on Thursday,November 16 at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 explained her role regarding Land Use Applications and how these applications are reviewed by her office. Ms.Kittrick stated that the Street Maintenance Plan requires that all arterials be evaluated annually and all other streets,which would include Renton Avenue S, be evaluated every two years. Ms. Kittrick explained traffic mitigation fees and how they are reviewed and collected,resources available for street repair, and hauling times as allowed by code. Ms.Kittrick reviewed intersection distances,how they are measured, and under what circumstances intersections should be 110 feet apart vs. 150 feet apart. She also discussed the transportation study provided by the applicant, including levels of service at S 7th Ct and access to Renton Hill overall. Regarding the foundation of Renton Avenue S.,Ms. Kittrick stated that recent borings show four inches of asphalt over crushed rock. On cross examination,Ms.Kittrick responded to questions raised by Ms.Larson in her appeal letter. Ann M. Gygi, attorney representing applicant, Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson, 1221 Second Ave, Seattle,WA 98101-2925 opened by reiterating that in a SEPA appeal it is appellant's burden to establish that the SEPA • determination is clearly erroneous. This is a plat application that is based on an adopted comprehensive plan and zoning that slated this property for development at an urban scale. This parcel is among those that the City of Renton legislated to accommodate a certain amount of urban growth under the Growth Management Act. The general impacts associated with the conversion are impacts of the legislative decision. The specific and unique impacts of the plat proposal are what should be the subject of the SEPA consideration at this stage. Mark McGinnis, Geotech Consultants, 13256 NE 20th St. #16,Bellevue, WA 98005 reviewed his education, training and experience as a geotechnical engineer. He summarized what is contained in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by his firm regarding coal mines under the site, including risk of excessive settlement, localized subsidence, and mine gas emissions. Mr. McGinnis discussed the mitigation measures recommended in the Geotechnical Report to address the two worked coal mine seams under the property. He stated that it is his professional opinion that the recommended measures will adequately mitigate Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 4 any potential risks associated with the two worked coal seams. Mr. McGinnis described the steep slope associated with Lot#35 in the northeast corner of the site. His firm investigated the slope, looked for slope problems, and did a test pit for exploration in the area to assess soil conditions near the top of the slope. Based on these observations, a 25 foot building setback from the crest of the slope is recommended. In addition to the 25 foot setback, it is recommended that there be no clearing and grading within 10 feet of the top of slope. Larry Hobbs,Transportation Planning and Engineering,Inc.,2223 112th Ave NE, Suite 101, Bellevue,WA 98004 reviewed his background, education and training as a traffic engineer. Mr.Hobbs stated that safety issues were considered as part of the traffic study that was prepared for the project. The city provided the last three years worth of accident data in the area, and it was found that there were no accidents recorded on Renton Hill itself for this period of time. In checking the data for the last five years, it was found that there were three traffic accidents throughout all of Renton Hill. Two of these accidents involved one vehicle backing into another, and the third was a vehicle striking a parked vehicle. There were no injuries or fatalities in any of the reported accidents. The record of reported traffic incidents is one of the main indicators of safety on a street system. Mr. Hobbs stated that it is his opinion that there will not be any increase in traffic accidents in the Renton Hill area as a result of the proposed development. Residents of the area would most likely be aware of anything that may be deficient and would drive accordingly to compensate for that. New residents moving into the area would rapidly gain familiarity with the street system. Jennifer Steig, Peterson Consulting Engineers,4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 200,Kirkland,WA 98033 gave.a summary of her training, education and experience as a civil engineer. Ms. Steig described the conceptual grading plan her firm prepared for the site. Once grades are set, computer programs to come up with cut and fill volume. Based on the conceptual grading plan,there would be approximately 55,000 cubic yards of cut material and 19,000 cubic yards of fill. The applicant requested that we develop a plan with a closer balance so that all the cut and fill would be used on the site--there would not be any material hauled off the site as a result of grading. The conceptual plan was sent to a company used industry wide that has a computer program which can look at the site as it is graded in the conceptual plan and raise or lower the site in small increments to determine when a balance is reached. This information is used to develop a final grading plan for construction. In doing this, it was found that if the site is raised one foot from the conceptual grading plan,there would be a balance of the cut and fill material on the site. Based on further geotechnical studies, if the unsuitable fill were screened on site,the amount of fill that would need to be hauled off site could be reduced by approximately half. Ms. Steig discussed the number of truck trips that would be required to haul fill off the property based on the number of cubic yards of fill remaining. She explained under what conditions material must be worked so that it will be suitable for use in construction. In closing,Ms.Larson discussed the issues of preservation of vegetation and wildlife, compatibility of the new homes with the neighborhood, and the two crested vertical curves on Renton Ave S that do not meet city, county or state requirements for vertical curve design. Ms.Fontes, in closing, addressed issues raised by the appellant in the course of the hearing and discusseil what the evidence has shown and what the process has been in each instance. Ms.Fontes reiterated that despite all the questions raised by the appellant, she has not shown evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts in any of these instances. Therefore,the decision made by the ERC must stand. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 5 Ms. Larson responded that every question she asked was stated in the ERC's report. She responded to the questions because she felt there was clarification needed. Some of the issues have been clarified,others have not. In closing, Ms. Gygi stated that the applicant concurs with the City's closing arguments. She reviewed some of the issues raised by the appellant. Ms. Gygi summarized by stating that any project will alter the surrounding area. It is unrealistic to expect that there would be no effect from development. The law does not require that all adverse impacts be eliminated. If it did,no change in land use would ever be possible. Ms. Gygi reiterated that the burden is upon the appellant to prove adverse environmental impacts,which has not been done in this case. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 11:30 a.m. SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS,CONCLUSION&DECISION FINDINGS: 1. The appellant,The Renton Hill Community Association,represented by Ruth Larson, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M) issued for a proposed Preliminary Plat that would divide approximately 10.35 acres of R 8 (Residential: 8 units per acre)zoned property into 57 lots. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. In processing the preliminary plat application the City subjected the application to is ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 3. The subject site is located near the intersection of Beacon Way SE, S 7th Court and S 7th Street. The property is located immediately across from Philip Arnold Park. 4. The subject site a triangular parcel approximately 1.114 feet by 818 feet by 829 feet. 5. The subject site is approximately 10.35 acres or 450,846 square feet in area. 6. The subject site has rolling and descending terrain with some steeper slopes that were determined to be manmade as part of past mining or quarrying activity. An exemption from steep slope regulations was issued administratively since the steeper slopes are not natural. 7. The ERC imposed five conditions related to erosion control,three conditions imposing mitigation fees for fire,parks and roads,three conditions related to geotechnical issues for building construction/foundation work, subsidence notice due to potential coal mines and setbacks from steep slopes, one condition dealing with the potential discovery of hazardous materials, one dealing with traffic control for construction vehicles and finally, a condition for access across the Seattle Pipeline for emergency, secondary access. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 6 8. During the course of the public hearing staff noted that the gross vehicle weight of 26,000 was not intended to vary from that posted on the road signs and should have matched that posted along the road. 9. The appellants objected to the determination. The appellants objected to or raised concerns about: a. Modification of street standards to allow narrower roads in the plat. b. Protection for abutting Falcon Ridge and River Ridge properties. c. Weight limit on Renton Avenue differing from posted standard(that was an error not intended to vary from posted limits). d. Width and emergency access relating to the Pipeline road. e. The steepness and width of Renton Avenue South. f. Exception to Critical Areas Ordinance that permitted grading on previously disturbed slopes. g. The amount of grading and number of heavy truck trips were not fully evaluated for impacts on the community. (the applicant altered the plans to balance the cut and fill and substantially reduce material movements) h. Impacts on River Ridge. i. Air quality impacts of vegetation removal. j. The alteration of the base elevation and its impacts on water. k. The removal of 92% of the trees and retention of 32 trees, if possible. 1. The maintenance of installed landscaping strips and islands. m. Impacts on the deer population that frequents the subject site. n. The manner in which the rezone was adopted. o. The character of the homes. p. The consistency of fencing. q. The impacts of new light on the community. r. The impact of internal pocket parks. s. The impact on the Renton Hill community by this plat. -• t Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF - January 25, 2001 Page 7 t. Traffic impacts of new residents and construction vehicles on the existing road surfaces and the community. u. The use of mitigation funding. v. The development does not follow the policies of the City of Renton. 10. The subject site is located near the northeast corner of Renton Hill just where it begins its drop down to Maple Valley and the Cedar River. 11. The majority of property in the vicinity of the subject site is zoned R-8 (Residential; 8 dwelling units per acre). It has been developed with single family homes. The slopes north of and below the subject site are Resource Conservation. 12. Immediately north of the subject site is the River Ridge development that contains 11 lots. The proposed development would share an access roadway that now serves only River Ridge. East of the subject site is Falcon Ridge,and it contains 80 lots. Falcon Ridge is accessed from the east by a private roadway. 13. The subject site is covered by what is probably second or third growth trees and shrubs. As noted,the site has been disturbed by some form of extraction or quarrying in the past. 14. The applicant did an historical survey of the subject site using aerial photographs as well reviewing the permit history of the site. There also were reviews of the mining data for the subject site and vicinity. There were also borings to determine the nature of the soils and to expose potential dumping of hazardous or other materials. The US Geological Survey maps for the area show a mine symbol, although it does not specify the type of mine but it appears it was used as a gravel quarry. 15. An evaluation was made of potential mine hazards. Both the more shallow and deeper mines are located 200 feet to 600 feet deep. It is anticipated that most linear shafts would have subsided over time. Any collapse events in "horizontal"mines would be distributed over those 200 to 600 feet, causing little surface subsidence. The greater potential for dangerous collapses are old airshafts or vertical access shafts. Some of these were filled with jumbled lumber or other debris till it"caught" on the sides of the shaft and then filled. The"caught" materials can decay over time and lead to collapses. In most cases these latter actions cannot be predicted. The geotechnical information and studies have instructions on dealing with these if they are discovered during construction. In addition,there are governmental agencies that deal with such openings, although obviously,an opening occurring can still take parties by surprise. The geotechnical report also has construction methods to make sure homes constructed in this development follow certain prescribed foundation techniques. 16. The applicant and City emphasized stability in dealing with lots near the edge of slope areas. :The_only lot affected by steeper slopes is Lot 35 in the northeast corner of the subject site. Lot 35 will have.a 25 foot setback for building and a 10 foot setback buffer that will remain undisturbed. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 8 17. The Geotechnical information shows that areas that have 15%to 30% slopes are limited and most of the terrain is moderate and the underlying soils are suitable for construction. The ERC imposed conditions to deal with erosion. The professional analysis is that the measures suggested in the geotechnical report and the measures imposed by the ERC should prevent any problems. 18. There are approximately 250 to 300 acres of open space along the Cedar River and the slopes above the river in City ownership or open space. Although a large amount of this property is very steep slopes, there are a developed trail and park located along the river, and there are other level or more gentle areas. To accommodate roads and building pads, most of the vegetation will be removed from the subject site. It would appear that similar clearing probably has occurred for most development on the hill in the past with ornamentals replacing native trees. 19. There will be a loss of over 300 trees of six inches or greater in diameter. This loss of trees and habitat is an unfortunate but foreseeable result of development. Trees and vegetation may be maintained where possible. Open space tracts and ornamental landscaping generally occur as plats are developed and mature. 20. The project was reviewed for compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance and the land clearing regulations. The exception approved for working on the man-made or altered slopes is not unusual and is a remedy available by code. Natural slopes will not be altered or would require special approvals. 21. The original plans called for a substantial grade and fill effort. This would have entailed a large number of dump trucks moving the materials to and from the subject site. The applicant further refined their grading plans and found that generally raising the elevation of the subject site by approximately one (1)foot would significantly reduce the needed trips. This would mean utilizing local materials on site in what is termed a "balanced cut and fill." There would still be export of unsuitable materials or debris that has been dumped on the subject site. It is not anticipated that raising the site by approximately one foot would create any problems with erosion or stability. The number of truck trips would probably be reduced to approximately 750 trips. The original estimate would have generated approximately 3,700 trips. The trucks would meet load limit requirements of the City. While this is not a small number of trips, it is also not unusual where development is occurring, including in residential areas and the City urges that this is generally not a SEPA impact. 22. The existing public roads serving the subject site do not meet current standards. Similar undersized or steep roads serve other older or hilly areas of the City including roads serving areas west of Rainier. At the same time,these older roads serve their neighborhoods or communities. Renton Avenue seems to serve the existing population, and as new residents have moved to Renton Hill they have adjusted to the constraints and limitations. This does not discount the experiences of current residents and that fact that extra care seems necessary to negotiate the roadways and deal with events like snow and ice.:The fact is,transportation impact analysis including LOS information and sight distance information shows that the existing road system can handle the additional traffic including the additional approximately 50 to 60 vehicle trips that would be generated during the peak hours. It appears that there may be an approximately 0.2 second delay in wait time at traffic lights. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 9 23. The proposed intersection at SE 7th Court and the subject proposal's entry road will meet City standards for sight distance and angles. Anytime a new intersection is created residents have to accommodate the changes in traffic flow. 24. Renton Avenue South is approximately 26 feet wide and has an approximately 23 foot 2 inch driving surface. There is a 5 inch drop to the gutter. Both telephone poles and hydrants are located close to the right-of-way and driving surface. There are some dips in the road and the crest apparently creates difficult sight problems with traffic driving up and down the hill according the residents. The technical analysis would appear to show that at normal driving sitting position,the view is not significantly impaired. 25. A study of accident history showed no reported accidents during the last three years and three(3) accidents throughout Renton Hill during the last five years. They appeared to be minor accidents resulting in limited property damage but no personal injuries. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there have been a number of"near-miss" and minor accidents but that residents may not have reported some accidents. The assumption then would have to be that they were not major accidents if they remained unreported. 26. The evidence does suggest that curbs, gutters and sidewalks improve safety but there are areas along what would be the commute route where this is not possible. Limiting speed and driver caution serve to control conflicts. SEPA does not ask an applicant to rectify existing problems, whether traffic or storm water problems,but requires that impacts be appropriately disclosed. 27. The appellant challenged the traffic generation numbers used by the applicant. Those numbers estimate that each single family home generates approximately 9.55 trips. The 57 homes would generate 544.35 trips per day. The estimates also predict that approximately ten percent(10%)of the total trips would occur during each of the peak commuting times or approximately 55 trips. No basis for the challenge was provided. 28. The development, if approved in full,would add 57 homes to an existing inventory of approximately 200 homes, or an approximately 25% increase. There has been some infilling in the last few years,also adding to the inventory. At the same time, some homes were lost to the last expansion and straightening of I-405. The traffic report and City analysis demonstrate that while the roads are not standard,they have sufficient capacity to handle the additional traffic. There will be impacts,but they are not considered untoward. The LOS for the intersections on the hill will not change as a result of the development. 29. Intersection spacing was found to be able to meet standards for the new intersection,which will be controlled by a stop sign. __ 30. LOS of A and B exist for the critical intersections and those will not be changed by the development of the subject site, although as indicated,wait times may increase by a fraction of a second. 31.. Street maintenance is accomplished as needed. No specific improvements outside the boundaries of the plat will occur other than some possible modification to the intersection at Beacon and 7th. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal'and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF - January 25,2001 Page 10 32. The City works with applicants to develop a construction management plan to deal with traffic, routes and times in order to control access by heavy trucks. This would be done in this case as well. 33. There is an approximately 30 foot wide strip of land between the proposed development and River Ridge,the residential site adjacent to the subject site. Fences are not generally an environmental issue. Setbacks between newer single family and existing single family uses is also not considered a SEPA issue. The project will be providing the required setbacks, and in some instances it intends to provide larger than required setbacks. Larger setbacks than code provides are not required(minimum impacts that would occur with any development and not untoward in any fashion). The additional light and glare created by the new homes is not expected to be out of the ordinary for single family communities. It is not particularly reviewed for single family development. 34. While there is no public bus route serving the hill, residents can apparently use a dial-up service for vans. - 35. The proposed density of 6.78 is in the midrange permitted in the R-8 Zone. The R-8 Zone permits a density of between 5 and 8 single family units per acre. 36. There is an approximately 30 foot wide strip of land between the proposed development and Falcon Ridge,the other residential site adjacent to the subject site. 37. Mitigation fees for transportation are distributed after the City Council determines needs in its six year cycle. Maintenance is done as needed. 38. Construction activity and hauling is governed by code provisions limiting the impact on rush hour traffic and limiting it, generally,to daylight hours. In addition,there is the construction management plan. Trucks doing hauling are monitored and "weight tickets" and reports are required. Renton Avenue was checked and it is four inches of asphalt over crushed rock. The City found it acceptable for heavy loads. It currently serves large garbage trucks and fire trucks. 39. The proposed reduction in street width from 50 feet to 42 feet for new roads within the plat boundaries is a code compliance issue and should not generally affect SEPA compliance. 40. The question of who builds the homes and what would be their quality is not a SEPA issue. The City does not control design of single family development nor who may develop such homes if they meet code standards. 41. The applicant and City, in response to the appeal, both noted that asking a series of questions, particularly if the answers are contained in existing studies or covered by existing regulations,-does not provide a sufficient basis for overturning a SEPA decision. 42. All of the Findings and Conclusions of the companion Plat Report are incorporated into this report by reference. y Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC),the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870,880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council,87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976,stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS,since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued.In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document,an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact,on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability.(Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: a. Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. b. (2) Significance involves context and intensity...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact....The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great,but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." c. Probable. "Probable"means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 5. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short- term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal,as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent I 4 Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 12 for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 6. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development,whether an office building or a single family development, may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. 7. There is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood and there may definitely be inconvenience, particularly during construction. There will be clear changes to the subject site. But these changes do not necessarily rise to the level of impact mandated by SEPA to require the preparation of an EIS. The development will not significantly alter the character of the community. It will be single family in character,just like the surrounding development. Adding additional single family homes to the existing single family community is not dramatic. It will not trigger changes to other undeveloped or low density sites and will not create any precedents generating calls for changes to the residential zoning already governing the area. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designated the area for urban densities. In addition,while additional traffic will flow through the main commute route into downtown Renton,the proposed community is located on the edge of the community, not in the midst of the existing community, and its overall impacts will not be very significant. 8. Traffic seems to be a key issue presented by the appellant, and traffic's associated issues such as narrow and steep roads,heavy construction traffic and stopping distance and sight distance on the hill and at the new intersection. These are legitimate concerns,but the evidence does not provide a basis for altering the ERC's decision. They will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The development will permanently add more traffic of a kind that traffic analysis shows the streets currently handle without appreciably increasing commute times,overloading roads or increasing conflicts significantly in terms of SEPA impacts that would require more detailed information than has been prepared in the various technical studies reviewed by the ERC. It will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The development will generate impacts similar to those that now exist. 9. There definitely will be more traffic. That occurs anytime new development occurs. The streets leaving the hill are definitely steep and narrow. The various analyses demonstrate that the LOS will not be substantially changed. The analyses also demonstrate that while there are some constraints due to the steepness of the hill and the narrowness of the roadway, but that the additional traffic can be safely accommodated. 10. The most pronounced change will be the removal of the forest cover on the ten acres. This acreage has been cleared in the past and the site topography altered by what appears to have been quarrying activity. But clearing of trees alone is not sufficient to trigger the preparation of an EIS. Nothing in record suggests that this alone will create such a significant impact on the quality of the environment that additional information is needed. This acreage needs to be looked at in the context of the adjacent 200 to 300 acres of forest and habitat. It also needs to be looked at in terms of surrounding uses. The areas around the site are mostly urban and developed with single family homes such as proposed for the subject site. There is already a park located immediately across from the site. While animals will probably be displaced, there appears to be sufficient open space immediately adjacent to the site to provide habitat. Nothing in the record demonstrates the any large species or threatened species - permanently inhabit the subject site. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings - File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 13 11. Construction impacts will be irritating to those who live near the subject site and construction traffic will have impacts on the community as a whole,but they are not the type of impacts which have more than a short-lived impact and they are not the types of impacts that would throw the ERC's decision into doubt. In addition,code provides for construction management plans, and there remains the possibility that the pipeline road could serve some construction uses. In addition,the applicant has substantially reduced the amount of materials that would need to be transported either to or from the subject site. This will substantially reduce the originally anticipated truck traffic. 12. While there will be a series of impacts as there are in any development,they do not add up in a quantifiable manner to the type of impacts or long term precedents that result in more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. Issues such as quality or character of development,fencing, setback standards in excess of those required,code permitted exceptions to slope clearing or roadway width are not appropriately SEPA issues. Access to the site across the pipeline road is a condition of development,and if it were not granted,that would have a profound affect on the proposal and is not a SEPA issue. The creation of internal parks and open space and maintenance are not SEPA issues. The manner of adoption of the reclassification of the site is not a SEPA issue. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. There was a thorough review of geotechnical information that showed the site could be developed. There were two traffic reports, including slope analysis of sight distance issues,that demonstrated the current roads,while not meeting current standards have capacity for the additional traffic anticipated. 14. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. MINUTES: PRELIMINARY PLAT The following minutes are a summary of the November 16 and December 12,2000 preliminary plat hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Thursday,November 16 at 11:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Because of time constraints,Mr. Mehihaff,Ms.Liston,Mr. Giuliani,Mr.Ellis,Ms. Fulfer,Ms. Herman, Ms. Lamke,and Mr. Fulfer testified regarding the preliminary plat during the appeal portion of the hearing. Their comments appear later in the minutes. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: • , Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 14 Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file,LUA00- Exhibit No.2: Overall plat plan 053,PP,ECF, containing the original application, proof of posting,proof of publication an other documentation pertinent to this request Exhibit No.3: Sheet 2 of 4, larger scale drawing of Exhibit No.4: Sheet 3 of 4, larger scale drawing of plat plan plat plan Exhibit No. 5: Sheet 4 of 4, preliminary plat plan Exhibit No.6: Topographic survey Exhibit No. 7: Tree cutting and land clearing plan Exhibit No.8: Drainage control plan Exhibit No. 9: Generalized utilities plan Exhibit No. 10: Detailed grading plan Exhibit No:11: Neighborhood detail map Exhibit No. 12: Zoning map Exhibit No. 13: Plat map of lots along north border Exhibit No. 14: Timeline of project showing buffer Exhibit No. 15: Wildlife Report Exhibit No. 16: Original plat map of River Ridge Exhibit No. 17: Stopping sight distances drawing Exhibit No. 18: Stopping sight distances chart Exhibit No:19: Stopping sight distances chart and Exhibit No.20: Renton Ave. S. stopping sight topographic distances Exhibit No. 21: Traffic Count Charts(6 sheets) Exhibit No.22: Aerial photograph of River Ridge Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 presented the staff report. Bennett Development has proposed subdivision of an approximately 450,846 square feet(10.35 acre)property into 57 lots suitable for detached, single family houses. The triangular-shaped property is located on Renton Hill, southeast of the intersection of Beacon Way S with SE 7th Ct, Jones Ave S,and South 7th St. Although Renton Hill is a well established neighborhood, land abutting the proposed project to the north has been developed fairly recently into River Ridge, an eleven lot subdivision. Falcon Ridge,a large(80 lot)subdivision, lies to the southeast. Philip Arnold Park is adjacent to the southwest. The Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline,which is used occasionally for overflow parking from the park,separates the park from the proposed development property. The zoning designation for the property is R-8. Most of Renton Hill is zoned R-8 except for a strip of land on the west side above 1-405 which is zoned R-10. Access would be from a new public street that would intersect with SE 7th Ct. The new street would terminate in a cul-de-sac. An emergency-only access would connect the cul-de-sac with the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline. A modification from street standards has been requested to reduce the width of the public right-of-way from 50 feet to 42 feet. This modification has been approved by the director of the Development Services Department. It would not reduce the pavement width,only the right-of-way width, and would not affect the ability to have sidewalks in the development. Ms Higgins continued by stating that the Environmental Review Committee(ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated on October 17,200. One appeal was filed prior to the close of the appeal period. The ERC placed several mitigating measures on the project. The first four relate to erosion control on the project and are best management practices as required by the City. The applicant shall pay applicable Transportation, Fire and Parks mitigation fees. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical engineers as they pertain to site development and building construction. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat prior to recording stating that a known potential for ground subsidence exists in the area and.that building plans shall be designed in consultation with a structural engineer and shall conform to the recommendations of the Geotech report. The rear setback at the lot located in the northeast corner of the property, Lot#35, shall be increased to 25 feet from 20 feet. A note shall be placed on the title of the Iot prohibiting building construction within 25 feet of the of the rear property boundary and prohibit land clearing Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 15 within 10 feet of the rear property line. The applicant shall ensure that all construction debris and discarded items are excavated from the site and construction is ceased immediately,followed by notification of the City of Renton Development Services Division within 24 hours, should hazardous material be discovered during the removal. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall include a condition that the construction vehicles in excess of 20,000 gvw associated with the project would be prohibited from operating on Renton Hill during a.m.and p.m. peak traffic hours as identified in the traffic report. The applicant shall obtain an access permit in order to use the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement for a secondary, emergency only access. The permit shall be obtained prior to building permits. Ms. Higgins described the property and discussed how the proposal meets the various requirements of the Preliminary Plat Criteria. The proposed project meets the first objective of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element by providing new housing in what up to now has been underutilized land. It also provides a greater use of urban services and infrastructure. The proposed project would meet the policy of meeting net density levels by providing density of 6.86 dwelling units per acre. The lots are proposed at an average size of 5,350 square feet. The range of lot sizes is 4,504 to 8,318 square feet. Both the Development Standards and the Comprehensive Plan polices limit the height of building to two stories in the R-8 zone. The question of transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods is difficult on Renton Hill due to its situation of being isolated from the rest of the city and having limited access. There will be pedestrian connections throughout the neighborhood from new sidewalks that are going to be added and the Cedar River Pipeline. Three areas in the proposed site plan in the proximity of the entryway are going to be set aside as commonly held open spaces. It is not anticipated that the vegetation will be retained,but they will be landscaped. Staff recommends that a landscape plan be submitted to Development Services for review prior to building permits. The Comprehensive Plan included a forecast of Renton's traffic increase for a twenty year period. In the plan, it was estimated that there would be a 52% increase in traffic in Renton between 1990 and 2010. The estimated traffic increase on Cedar and Renton Avenues on Renton Hill would be approximately 25% from the proposed project. This appears to be consistent with projected city-wide traffic volume increases. Ms.Higgins discussed how the project meets the Housing Mandates in the Comprehensive Plan. The Growth Management Act requires the City to plan how it will accommodate its share of the projected population growth. The projected population growth for a 20 year period is determined by the Puget Sound Regional Council,and it was distributed to all cities and counties in the Puget Sound region. The Comprehensive Plan has to address how the City will provide housing for all economic segments of the City's population,and delineates the strategies for doing that. Ms Higgins reviewed some of the policies of the Housing Element and explained how they are met by the proposal. Ms.Higgins continued by reviewing how the proposal meets the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the policies that staff felt were met by the proposed project are: minimizing erosion and sedimentation by requiring appropriate construction techniques; implementing surface water management systems which protect natural features; promoting the return of precipitation to the soil at natural rates near__ where it falls through the use of detention ponds, grassy swales, and infiltration; promoting development.design which minimizes impermeable surface coverage; and managing the cumulative effects of storm water through a combination of engineering and preservation of natural systems. Slopes on the property were probably created by surface mining activity, and are therefore exempt from the Critical Areas Ordinance. The stormwater control system would provide adequate protection of the City's water resource. The applicant has estimated that approximately 389 trees sized 6 inches in diameter and greater t , Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: ,LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January25,2001 Page 16 and of various types would be removed from the property for construction. The applicant must adhere to the requirements of the Forest Practices Act. There are several areas in the project that are going to be preserved as "landscape tracts." The proposed project would meet all of the underlying zoning standards for the R-8 zone. The front, rear, and side setback lines indicated on the Preliminary Plat plan meet the minimum setback requirements for the R-8 zone. The maximum building coverage in the R-8 zone is 50% of lots 5,000 square feet or smaller and 35% of, or 2,500 square feet on, lots larger than 5,000 square feet. Compliance with the building coverage regulations would be a requirement of the building permit process. Ms. Higgins next reviewed the proposal's compliance with the subdivision regulations. All lots created by the subdivision would result in legal building lots according to the regulations for the R-8 zone. All parcels must have access established to a public road,which would occur by either directly off the public roads that would be built or from the two private roads or driveway that would be placed on the property. Side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines--they would be in this project. All lot corners at intersections would have a radius of a minimum of 15 feet. Police and Fire have indicated they have sufficient resources to furnish services. The Parks and Recreation Department has also concurred that they could provide service. Renton School District has stated that new students, estimated to be approximately 25,could be accommodated in Talbot Hill Elementary School, Dimmitt Middle School, and Renton Senior High School. The School District further requested that the existing school busses be allowed to continue their route through the area, which would be allowed. The conceptual stormwater plan has been accepted by the Plan Review Division,as have the conceptual water and sanitary sewer plan. Staff recommends approval of the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: (1)that the applicant comply with the ERC Mitigation Measures as they have been amended, (2)that all landscape tract areas, with the exception of the 5,402 square foot tract located at the entry,the private "park", and the landscape area adjacent to the storm pond be incorporated into lots already proposed, and (3) commonly held open space areas shall be enhanced prior to occupancy with landscaping including mixed deciduous and evergreen trees and plantings of native shrubs and groundcover, and the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Development Services Department for approval. An additional condition would be that a homeowners'association be established and that one of the requirements be that they would be responsible for maintaining the private stormwater system and the commonly held landscape area, including the 15 foot buffers. The Examiner stated that he will schedule an evening hearing to conclude this matter in order to accommodate those who have to leave due to prior commitments. The various parties will be notified of the date and time of the evening hearing. The hearing closed at 12:40 p.m. ********************************** The hearing opened on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Ms. Higgins gave a brief review of the project based on the Staff Report,which was presented at the hearing on December 16. Ms.Higgins stated that staff has added a recommendation which was not presented at the last hearing, that a Hold Harmless Agreement shall be recorded that indemnifies the City of Renton from any damage resulting from subsidence that may occur due to previous subsurface mining activities. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Fike presented a timeline explaining how the design for the project developed. In March of 1999 Renton School District selected Bennett Development as the purchasers. In September 1999 the mandatory pre- application meeting was held with the City. At that time plans for a 69-lot subdivision were submitted, designed around access from Beacon Way S. It was subsequently determined that Beacon Way S could not be accessed off of, since it is an easement owned by the City of Seattle and they do not want it used as a public right-of-way. In January of 2000,another pre-application meeting was held with the City of Renton and a new design for the project was submitted, based on input from community groups and the Cities of Renton and Seattle. This new design eliminated the Beacon Way access and showed access off of S 7th Ct. A stub road that would cross over the pipeline and go into Philip Arnold Park was included. The City of Renton determined that the stub road was not needed. A design was subsequently developed showing a buffer setback along the north border of the property In April of 2000 the developer sent a submittal package to Renton Hill community leaders showing them what was going to be submitted to the City of Renton. This showed a 56-lot subdivision. In May,the City of Renton deemed the application complete, but asked that the access road across the pipeline be removed. With the removal of the access road,the project went from 56 lots to 57. The City also asked the developer to do additional traffic counts. A three-week traffic study was done during the summer which took into consideration increased traffic from sports activities held in the area. Mr. Fike submitted a study which was done by a wildlife biologist in the period since the last hearing. The report shows that there are deer on the property;however,there were no signs of deer nesting there. An eagle that nests on the south tip of Mercer Island uses the Cedar.River as a fishing ground. This may be the eagle that is seen over the Cedar River and approaching the property. There are no signs of an eagle nesting on the property. The wildlife report shows that the project has minimal, if any, wildlife assessments. Regarding the pipeline easement,Mr. Fike explained that the City of Seattle views pipeline usage as a privilege. In order to be good neighbors with the City of Renton, Seattle overlooks things such as possibly driving trucks over the pipeline rather than through the neighborhood, and school buses using the pipeline. The City of Seattle will only issue Conditional Use Permits for the pipeline. The developer has a verbal agreement with Seattle that they will be able to have emergency vehicle access on the pipeline. Ms Higgins entered an original plat map which shows the entry to River Ridge as it was proposed,crossing the School District property,then intersecting the pipeline. A letter in the files from the City of Renton's Utilities Systems Manager at the time to the Real Property Division of the Seattle Water Department explains why the entryway to River Ridge was moved into the present position, and shows further evidence that the Seattle Public Utilities does not want the pipeline to be used for general traffic. John Nelson, Peterson Consulting Engineering,4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 200,Kirkland, WA 98033 explained what sight distance is and what kinds there are, using a sight distances drawing. Using charts and a topographic map, he explained stopping sight distance and how it is determined for different types of vehicles and several actual road slopes in the Renton Hill Area. Mr.Nelson stated that as a result of his . analysis and actually driving the roads in question, he did not think there is any significant problem with sight distances on the roads in Renton Hill. Larry Hobbs,Transportation Planning and Engineering, Inc., 2223 1 12th Avenue NE, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that typically intersections are made with three or four legs; however, five-legged intersections do exist. All of the legs of the intersection are stop controlled. There are no records of any accidents at the intersection over the past five years. There is no reason to believe this intersection does not operate safely and !< Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 18 adequately. There is enough capacity in the intersection to handle the traffic that is there now, and the future development. The intersection itself is relatively flat. Sight distance criteria does not come into effect at the intersection, since all vehicles must stop. Ms. Higgins clarified the Zoning Code as it relates to the project. In the R-8 Zone,the City requests that a developer try to have at least five units per net acre,with a maximum of eight units per net acre. If for some reason a developer chooses not to develop to the maximum density, or if they are trying to develop below the minimum density,the City requests that the developer demonstrate that future lots could be developed on the property. The City asks for a technique called shadow platting which would create hypothetical lots that would have the proper setbacks and be conforming lots given the requirement of that zone so that in the future those lots could be developed. Mark Mehlhaff, 532 Grant Ave S, Renton, WA 98055 addressed the issue of road safety on Renton Avenue S. Many drivers tend to use excessive speed going up the hill because of the steepness of the grade. This, combined.with limited sight distances and cars parked on the side of the street, creates a dangerous situation. Mr. Mehlhaff asked why Puget Drive and the pipeline cannot be opened up for use of construction vehicles and general traffic to alleviate the congested conditions on Renton Avenue S and Cedar Avenue. Nancy Liston, 1518 Beacon Way S,Renton,WA 98055 spoke to the issues of tranquility and quality of life on Renton Hill. Ms. Liston expressed concern that the tranquility of the area would be greatly impacted by the increased traffic, noise, dirt and dust generated by the large trucks and construction equipment. She stated that the streets and parks on the hill were never intended for the increased number of vehicles and people who will be occupying 57 homes. Ms. Liston also discussed the issue of intersection safety. She has witnessed people not obeying the stop signs, and has seen many near-misses. Ms. Liston also expressed concern about deer crossing the street, particularly at night, and the safety of bicyclists on the streets. John Giuliani, 1400 South 7th Street, Renton, WA stated that the new exit off of Renton Hill has no bearing on the traffic on Renton Avenue, since it is necessary to travel on Renton Avenue to get to the new exit. Mr. Giuliani further stated that when Renton Ave was repaved, he personally observed that all the asphalt was removed down to the dirt. New asphalt was placed directly on top of the dirt with no gravel base underneath to anchor it. Quentin Ellis, 715 High Ave S., Renton, WA 98055 stated that there have been a lot of sophisticated studies made by the City and others regarding this project, but it all boils down to one word--infrastructure. The infrastructure that has to be maintained is not there. He cited a newspaper article regarding the Habitat program's plan to build low income housing on a ten acre parcel in Snoqualmie Ridge. They are only proposing to build 50 houses on those ten acres. This proposed project plans to build 57 homes in an area with only one street that is only 23.6 feet wide, as opposed to the normal 40 to 50 foot width. He expressed concern about the mine shafts in the area and the possibility of sink holes developing with the increased traffic on Renton Avenue S. Mr. Ellis challenged Bennett Development's traffic engineer to substantiate his statement that there would not be an increase in the number of accidents on Renton Hill. He questioned how, considering the 25% increase in traffic anticipated, the engineer could make that statement. Wendy Fulfer, 1729 SE 7th Ct,Renton, WA 98055 stated she lives in River Ridge. The intersection where she comes out of her development is already a five-way intersection. Adding another street would only add to the difficult situation at the intersection. Ms. Fulfer added that she personally makes eight to ten trips off the hill c,1,.' Hill _ ninary Plat Hearings 0-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF xpressed concern about the deer and other wildlife in the area, including nesting eagles, if the )ped. mines. they are 711 Jones Ave S,Renton, WA 98055 stated that the contractor of River Ridge had the to make ild 23 homes. He elected to build only 12 homes out of respect to the neighborhood and the 3 plan for on Hill. Ms. Herman further stated that she feels the property value of her home will drop traffic and the smaller homes that will not fit in with the rest of Renton Hill. to 5 Cedar Ave S,Renton,WA 98055 stated that she feels the massive size of the project is an nces and the current residents of the Hill. The number of cars and speed of the vehicles on Cedar Ave is ly and the for the number of homes that are there. The project should be forced to have their entrance l Renton iget Drive. The increased traffic and safety issues due to the slope of the streets all lead to g the best alternative. Ms. Lamke asked why Renton School District is still listed as the tioned whether the property been sold,or if that is contingent on whether the project is issue of amke stated that a clear cutting of this ten acres of mature forest could be detrimental to the rea that is to salmon recovery. e giving :or into 9 SE 7th Ct,Renton, WA 98055 asked why the buffer on the north edge of the project was at they etback of the homes and not separate from the lots. He asked who is responsible for providing he drove the vegetation in the buffer. He expressed concern about the increased number of trips per day of the. . new homes. He further stated that the project will be out of place because of the density of the a collapse change the character of the neighborhood and quality of life of the residents. Mr.Fulfer patching ig distances of vehicles and expressed concern that the stopping distances involved are right on ditions y. Being on the edge of safety should only be allowed in a controlled environment such as a d since Renton Hill. uld have i21 S 7th,Renton,WA 98055 addressed the sight distances issue. Most people drive in excess Renton Ave. S. Considering the reaction time required,and trying to find a place to stop ns :d cars along the street, it can be a dangerous situation. It is important that the human factor be e it meets r than justusing an engineering study. tandards• the ) Renton Ave. S, Renton,WA 98055 asked if Mr.Nelson made specific measurements on the in the Kist on Renton Ave. S.or if he relied only on charts for his analysis. mount of 16 Renton Ave. S., Renton, WA 98055 questioned the 6%grade, which is an average. The infiltrate. en 3% and 9% is sudden,so that close to the end of the 3%grade, it is effectively a 9% grade, i receive f a 6% grade. That would make a dramatic difference in the calculations. He expressed ems in 3 are moving in both directions,the road is narrow, cars and trucks are parked on the side,and to go. Regarding speeds on the bridges,Mr.Johnson stated that speed limits are not observed. ling more cars is not something the road can handle safely. :ount of raffle 33 Cedar Ave. S,Renton, WA 98055 stated that she feels the sidewalks, particularly on Renton oelow equate. The intersection at 7th and Beacon Way is very busy,especially during softball games. tenton sswalks, and sometimes no sidewalks. Bicycling on the streets is dangerous. Ms. Calhoun said hould er driveway because she does not want to have to back onto the street considering the and speed tions that exist. •(.•4 'n Hill ;liminary Plat Hearings 400-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF 01 ated that the air shafts from the underground mines are made of wood timbers and are ,ion of 14 to 15 feet in diameter. He expressed his concern that the wood timbers will rot over time. cars Cady been three incidents of cave-ins. One took place across the street from his home. The air blocked off from the mines below,they were filled and blocked off 50 or 75 feet from the top. time makes the situation more dangerous, not less so. s provided ;how that :stioned exactly where Mr.Nelson made the sight distance measurements on Renton Hill. around :d the Mr. lied that graphical measurements were made on 7th Avenue from the project site all the way ; is a Avenue S and Cedar,then all the way down Renton Avenue S and Cedar to the bottom of the -e graphical measurements made on the computer. On-the-ground field work was done all the Avenue S. t Ave. S. i13 Grant Avenue S, Renton, WA 98055 stated that sometime between 1980 and 1982,a garage The n through a sink hole at 820 Renton Avenue S. Mr. Ed Gouch owned the property at that time. pole. She rpressed his concern about safety issues on Renton Hill, particularly in regard to emergency I many Eton Hill expressed her concern that the Geotechnical Report has a disclaimer on it. Ms. McManus stated inkhole on the side of her property. Her neighbor,Marie Overman,has had to have coal mining 15 foot in from Montana because her driveway caved in. V of the 5- ms from 1 that Bennett Development does not object to the idea of a Hold Harmless agreement that would ,p,which gainst the land itself. Bennett Development does object to the idea of a bond being placed that for the the developer liable into the future: in his called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The at 9:00 p.m. oppose /ere not 2Y PLAT FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION move the •oncerns. td the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: avenue S, ,e City has ulleant,Ryan Fike,Bennett Development filed a request for approval of a 57-lot Preliminary ie ;ether with Tracts for open space. ;will be ►nthe low file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation instruction er pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. slice F stationery vironmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official,.issued a Declaration of feral gnificance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. An appeal of that determination was e opened the Renton Hill Community Association. A hearing on that appeal was consolidated with the s have on this plat. !. • Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 23 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located near the intersection of Beacon Way SE, S 7th Court and S 7th Street. The property is located immediately across from Philip Arnold Park. 6. The subject site a triangular parcel approximately 1.114 feet by 818 feet by 829 feet. 7. The subject site is approximately 10.35 acres or 450,846 square feet in area. 8. The subject site has rolling terrain but has steeper slopes along the northeast corner of the site. There are also some steeper slopes on the interior of the subject site that were determined to be manmade as part of past mining or quarrying activity. An exemption from steep slope regulations was issued administratively since the steeper slopes are not natural. 9. Although the slopes are not regulated by the Land Clearing and other development regulations,the ERC imposed a series of conditions to control erosion and deal with geotechnical issues. The subject site is located within Aquifer Protection Area 2. 10. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1861 enacted in February 1961. 11. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family- 8 dwelling units/acre). It received this designation in June 1993. 12. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family uses. 13. The subject site is vacant. It currently is owned by the Renton School District but the applicant has an option to purchase the property. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 57 single family lots. There would also be tracts for storm water detention and open space. Staff has recommended that most of these tracts be incorporated into adjacent lots to minimize potential maintenance issues. 15. The development of the subject site would require tree removal. Approximately 389 trees of 6 inches or greater diameter would be removed to allow for the construction of roads, building pads and storm drainage systems. A Class IV permit will be required to convert forest land to residential purposes. The applicant has indicated an intention to save some trees near the detention pond and property„ entrance if grading work permits. 16. The lots range in size from 4,504 square feet to approximately 8,318 square feet. Staff estimates that the average lot size would be approximately 5,350 square feet. The minimum lot size permitted:in the . R-8 zone is 4,500 square feet. - , Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 2'5;2001 Page 24 17. The Beacon Way Seattle Pipeline Road runs in a southeast to northwest diagonal along the southwest angle of the subject site. It connects to Puget Drive SE and Royal Hills Drive SE on the east. The roadway is not a public roadway and has a gated barricade to prevent through traffic. Philip Arnold Park is located on the southwest side of that roadway. The road does provide access to Philip Arnold Park from the east. School buses also use this road approaching from the east, and a school bus stop is located east of the barricade. School buses do not negotiate the steep hills from the I-405 side of Renton Hill. 18. Apparently,the pipeline road was open as a through-street in the past but was closed to reduce traffic passing across Renton Hill and down the steep roadways east of I-405. This also coincided with the then limitation of only one crossing of I-405 that also crossed railroad tracks that could totally block access to the hill. Reconstruction and realignment of I-405 during the last decade provided a second crossing of I-405, and both crossings are elevated and therefore removed the railroad crossing. 19. The proposed layout would create a looped roadway in the interior of the plat with a cul-de-sac road providing access to the southeast corner of the subject site. A gated, emergency access connection would be installed between the dead end cul-de-sac and the Seattle Pipeline roadway, with Seattle's permission. 20. The proposed roadways would be 42 feet wide instead of the standard 50 feet, since the applicant requested an administrative modification to reduce width,which was approved. Road dimensions are determined by the Director administratively. 21. The lots would be located along the perimeter of the triangular shaped parcel as well as in the interior of the loop. The interior block would contain 13 single family lots as well as a"park"tract. 22. Eight lots would be served by either pipe stem or private roadways. Proposed Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17 would be served by private access easement or roads. Similarly,Proposed Lots 20, 21 and 22 would be served by private access roadway. Proposed Lot 35 would be located on a pipe stem driveway. 23. In order to prepare the site for the building pads and the new roads,the applicant will clear most of the vegetation from the site. Some trees may be preserved near the detention system. The slopes adjacent to Proposed Lot 35 would remain undisturbed, since there are steeper slopes that will be protected. 24. The applicant proposes open space and the storm water detention pond at the entrance to the plat. The road will pass through this open space. As the roadway splits to form the loop roadway,a small park will be located on the inside of the "Y" in the road. The applicant has proposed three triangular landscaped areas along the pipeline road to fill in between rectangular lots. Since the pipeline road runs at an angle,creating rectangular lots required these open space areas. As noted, staff -- recommended that these areas be incorporated into the adjacent lots to avoid maintenance problems. 25. Development of 57 single family homes will generate approximately 545 vehicle trips per day(based on approximately 9.55 trips per dwelling). It is anticipated that approximately 10%of the traffic'trips will occur at each of the morning and evening peak hours. Staff has also estimated that the 57 homes will increase traffic on Renton Hill by approximately 25 percent. This is based on the fact that there Heritage Renton Hill - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 25 are approximately 200 homes on the hill currently. The ERG imposed mitigation measures for fee generation. Staff noted that the City anticipated an increase in overall traffic of approximately 50 percent, and that the 25 percent increase was reasonable. 26. The traffic analysis shows that the major intersections serving this site,Main Avenue S and S 4th Street, Houser Way and Mill,Cedar and S 3rd and Renton Avenue and S 7th will suffer no degradation in LOS. The LOS for the first two intersections will remain at B,while the latter two intersections would remain at LOS A. 27. An analysis of historical traffic accidents showed only three minor accidents and no accidents resulting in injuries. Residents report that there have been a number of"near-misses"and residents living along Renton and Cedar must exercise diligence in using the driveways. 28. The width and slopes of Renton Avenue and Cedar and the other roads serving the subject site from downtown Renton,the only open access to the hill, do not meet current development standards. At the same time, staff reports that these roads have capacity to handle additional traffic and that these roads can also safely handle the additional traffic. Staff did suggest that new residents would have to adjust to the conditions of access just as other residents on the hill have adjusted in the past, including other new.residents. 29. The development of the subject site will generate approximately 25 school age children. These students would be spread among the different grades of the Renton School District. 30. The City will provide sanitary sewer service and domestic water. 31. The ERC imposed additional storm water detention requirements due to the topography and location of the subject site. The proposal will have to comply with the newest King County requirements. Staff reports that the conceptual drainage plan appears to adequately serve the subject site. Staff recommended a homeowners association be required to maintain the detention system. 32. While traffic and transportation issues were a main concern of the neighbors,the Transportation Division did not appear at the public hearing. Questions were handled by other planning and development staff. 33. In addition to the steep slopes along the northeast margins of the subject site,the subject site is located over old, abandoned coal mine tunnels and other workings. Old records and maps were also reviewed. The property was surveyed and inspected and did not show any evidence of mines or shafts. It does appear that the site was a quarry at one time. There are disturbed soils and slopes. A geotechnical analysis provides methods for preventing foundations from being affected if there should be subsidence. The studies also had other suggestions for dealing with the subject site, but indicated that there should not be any problems evident at the surface. Apparently,there have been incidents on the hill of subsidence in the past. The geotechnical information shows that the soils can bear development. The City did recommend that the applicant execute a "hold harmless" agreement regarding the coal mines in case some problems were to arise. • 1 Heritage Renton Hill Appeal.and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 26 34. In order to develop the subject site,the applicant will be excavating and filling the subject site. Originally,the applicant was going to export and import materials to level the site. The applicant proposes to alter those plans and do a balanced cut and fill. This will reduce the amount of materials that need to be transported to or from the subject site, reducing the number of truck trips substantially. • 35. Development of the subject site will not change the single family character of the area but will generate additional population and traffic as well as other attendant changes more people bring to an area. 36. The homeowners would be required to maintain the open space tracts at the entrance and the park area. 37. All of the Findings and Conclusions of the companion SEPA Appeal Report are incorporated into this report by reference. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The public interest in approving a preliminary plat depends on balancing a variety of interests. The City is bound by the Growth Management Act and has determined the appropriate density under that act for R-8 Districts is between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre. For this parcel with a net site area of 8.31 acres,the 57 homes yields a density of 6.86 dwelling units per acre. At the same time,the increase in traffic projected for this project is approximately 25 percent over current traffic. This is not an issue that merely equates to LOS and technical issues. This means approximately 550 additional trips will be traveling up and down very steep,narrow roads. Staff noted that the Comprehensive Plan forecast a growth of 52 percent, but those projections would clearly have a lot of that traffic directed efficiently to arterial streets and not narrow streets with single family homes located on very steep streets. These narrow roads serve as collector arterials, but are in no way equal in width or slope to roads that would generally serve that purpose. Renton and Cedar and the streets nearest the subject site are local residential access streets. In fact,they are substandard streets in both width and slope angle. Five hundred additional trips per day is a substantial impact on the homes along the route from the subject site to the downtown area. The public interest sought to be served by approving a plat is not solely served by providing additional housing that meets density standards and growth management standards that do not consider the neighborhood characteristics, and particularly the street characteristics. The public interest is served when one balances density with the impacts of development on other homes and their residents. Engineering design standards to not measure or balance these impacts. They clinically decide that a certain pavement width is adequate to accommodate any additional 500 trips per day, without weighing the affects on adjacent residents. The number of trips will balloon from approximately 2,000 trips per day to 2,500 on Renton and Cedar. Similarly,engineering values on sight distance over the crest of a hill cannot discount the neighbors evidence of"near-miss" accidents as vehicles attempt to avoid each other when negotiating the steep, narrow streets. The engineering numbers do not necessarily account for slowed reaction time of elderly drivers or the impatience of teenage drivers. •n 7 Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF - - -- January 25,2001 Page 27 Therefore, it seems that balancing the demands of growth management with the impacts on the residents along the commute route requires reducing the scale or scope of the project and the density of that project. The Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan both provide a range. While it has been generally the case that the density should be as great as possible to meet the housing demands,there may be appropriate times when that density should be reduced modestly to effectuate a balancing of interests. While any reduction will be modest,it still would help to ameliorate the impacts on the existing community. Scaling the plat back to 50 homes would provide a density of 6.02 dwelling units per acre. This falls within the permissible range of 5 to 8 found in the regulations but reduces the impacts. There would be approximately 50 less vehicle trips and while,not a substantial amount, it would go to lessen the impacts on the residential homes along the route and reduce the potential for vehicle conflicts somewhat. Reducing the density of this plat will reduce the untoward impacts on the existing residents. 2. The applicant will probably be heard to argue that the SEPA review did not warrant this reduction and that no significant impacts having more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment were found. "Significance" in terms of SEPA and whether it amounts to EIS threshold "significance" is entirely different than the localized but very consequential impacts of 500 to 600 additional vehicle trips on a local,residential street. Just because an issue is not so large or significant to trigger the need for EIS preparation does not mean it does have an impact which should not be mitigated when determining whether a plat serves the public use and interest. In this case,the additional traffic vis a vis the streets that would serve this traffic demand a density reduction. 3. The applicant could choose to implement such a reduction by either maintaining the general lot size and increasing the open space and secondarily preserving additional trees or by modestly increasing the lot sizes of the remaining 50 lots. Rather then specify the method,the recommendation would be to allow the applicant flexibility in this redesign. 4. In general,with the proposed density reduction,the proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. It does provide additional housing choices in an area that can be adequately served by water and sewer and to a lesser extent,the steep narrow roads of Renton Hill. The plat is somewhat isolated from surrounding development and buffers between the subject site and adjacent properties have been provided. 5. The plans show that site can deal with its storm water runoff. As noted, it can be served by City water and sewer. 6. It would appear that there is a remote potential for instability due to the underlying coal workings. There remains the potential to discover overgrown or ineffectively sealed off shafts. The applicant will be required to follow the procedures outlined in the geotechnical reports to develop the site and home foundations. The recommendation of staff for a hold harmless agreement seems reasonable in the event a unforeseen settlement occurs in the future. Potential residents should be given adequate notice that their is some potential for a coal mine subsidence to occur. 7. " The proposed layout appears reasonable. In most cases where "interior" lots would be accessed by easement or private roads or pipe stems,these lots are not sandwiched into compounds surrounded on i" [ ) Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings • File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF - January 25, 2001 Page 28 four side by other homes. A number of these lots are located-on the pipeline or at the open space edges of this site. 8. The ERC imposed conditions to avoid exacerbating drainage problems down stream and to avoid erosion. Storm water will be.contained and diverted to avoid excessive flows. The development to R-8 density standards and the need to create building pads and streets means that most of the vegetation will be removed from the subject site. 9. The proposed plat will provide additional housing choices in an area in which urban services are provided or can reasonably be provided. 10. Development of the site will introduce additional noise and population. 11. The plat provides reasonably rectangular lots and lots that meet the dimensional requirements of code. The open space between lots along the pipeline road does appear to be a potential maintenance problem, particularly with access to the pipeline road roundabout or circuitous from the main plat. These open space parcels should be absorbed into the adjacent lots. 12. The other open space parcels should be restricted by language on the face of the plat that preserves their open space characteristics and precludes selling them off for development in the future. 13. The plat will have its main access to a street which appears capable of providing a safe controlled intersection with appropriate sight and stopping distances. There will be a need to provide assurance that the Seattle pipeline road can be used for emergency access. 14. As a final recommendation,this office would recommend to the City Council that it explore providing the primary access to this plat from the pipeline road with a gated access to the remainder of Renton Hill. If such access could be granted,the narrow and steep streets would not be a issue and the plat could be built to full density. This office was not fully permitted to explore whether this was at all possible. This office only has anecdotal evidence that Seattle, at one time,permitted unobstructed •- access to Renton Hill from the east. This office does not suggest a full opening but again,recommends that primary access to this plat might be from the east with a gated emergency access at SE 7th Court to prevent through traffic movements. 15. In conclusion, the proposed preliminary plat should be approved by the City Council subject to the conditions noted below. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat should be reduced from 57 to 50 single family lots with a density of 6.02 dwelling units:per acre: This falls within the permissible range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. 2. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. - Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings • File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF - January 25,2001 Page 29 3. The plat shall contain language acceptable to the City Attorney regarding the recreational and open space respectively and precluding development of them. 4. All landscape tract areas, with the exception of the 5,402 sf tract located at the development entry,the 3,042 sf private"park",and the landscape area abutting the stormwater tract, shall be incorporated into lots already proposed within the plat. No additional building lots are to be created. A revised plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division prior to receiving construction permits. 5. Commonly held open space areas shall be enhanced,prior to occupancy,with landscaping including mixed deciduous and evergreen trees and plantings of native shrubs and groundcover. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Development Services Department for approval. 6. A Hold Harmless Agreement shall be recorded that indemnifies the City of Renton from any damage resulting from subsidence that may occur due to previous subsurface mining activities. 7. The applicant will have to secure in writing permission to use the Seattle pipeline road for emergency access. 8. The homeowners would be required to maintain the open space tracts at the entrance and the park area. ORDERED THIS 25th day of January,2001. • FRED J. KA N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January, 2001 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Jennifer Steig Sharon Herman 1055 S.Grady Way Peterson Consulting Engineering 711 Jones Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Renton, WA 98055 Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Elizabeth Higgins John Nelson Mike Fulfer 1055 S Grady Way Peterson Consulting Engineering 1729 SE 7th Ct. Renton, WA 98055 4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Renton, WA 98055 Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 •Kayren Kittrick Becky Lamke Bently Oaks 1055 S Grady Way 415 Cedar Avenue S 1321 S 7th Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 I.e ,, • i! Heritage Renton Hill - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 30 Ruth Larson Mark Mehlhaff Doug Brandt 714 High Avenue S 532 Grand Avenue S 610 Renton Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Ann M. Gygi Nancy Liston Mark Johnson Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson 1518 Beacon Way S 316 Renton Avenue S 500 Galland Building Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 1221 Second Avenue Ryan Fike John Giuliani Dana Calhoun Bennett Development 1400 S 7th Street 433 Cedar Avenue S 9 Lake Bellevue Dr., Suite 100-A Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98005 Larry Hobbs Quentin Ellis Bill Collins Transportation Planning& 715 High Avenue S 420 Cedar Avenue S Engineering,Inc. Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 2223 112th Avenue NE, Suite 101 Bellevue,WA 98004 Mark McGinnis Wendy Fulfer Rosemary Grassi Geotech Consultants 1729 SE 7th Ct. 422 Cedar Avenue S 13256 NE 20th St., #16 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98005 Linda McManus Bart Bennett Jeff Schultek 530 Renton Avenue S 1800 SE 7th Ct. 613 Grant Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA.98055 Renton, WA 98055 • - This report was mailed to other Parties of Record. A complete list of the Parties of Record is available in the Hearing Examiner's office. TRANSMI 1-1'bD THIS 25th day of January, 2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner • Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director- Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev.Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official -- i �x� ► Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 31 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request-for reconsideration must be filed in • writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,February 8,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. - An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. • The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. -1..... �'•'a• t ma CITY OF - HERITAGE RENTON HILL - < +�- RENTON NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP -M —�co.�A.. as-- .4. MOON �I 1 WR • 1 4►R-��� r�. G.pp 7 V DLL,bµ k�-�i 1 •'r 1 . ' X y • r \•'‘\ -' --1 `\��\rr1-1 rT T-1 rrrrTTT7171 ,�- 1 E. 4�'t��\ -.1-� +-+ I.i 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I �� �`� 1 I I 1 I� ssLLy? 1 I I!1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I. / �` J L,L.:�:-iltr� �11J'LLLL1111J1J / 11 ADA 1 / �- L_ / / j------- , / / -ra 1 r--1---1---.../� .------------- / / I I I 1 Or -rrrTTT-rnn / / �I IIIIII1II�rrrrrT77111 / / -/I-rn� L_LLt11J1JJ•1IIIIIII11I: / , / III III 11 �.rrrrrTTT4nn3I-I-rrrT7 -1-1'-Iv / a^A� / r 1JL-ILL]. J ILL' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1;1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-�a. / ,z, —_-- r�MAYd/ rL JJJ LLLL1111JiJ" % d y rT�T-rTram 1-t r-rr--r'-r-1-1--1"-rnTT�-rr1�-r�-I-�- I I I I I I I' I I I I I F3 I I I I I 1 1 111 1 III I I I I v " I I I I I I I I i l 1' I I�Q I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 11 11 I I I I i. / / id / I t 41 I-f- -L�-I- I HT'r z 1--1-4--i-i-h f-IJ F-F / / 11 1 1 1 1 I I, 1 1 Imo 1 •1 YJ / I-n J L1_1 i1—_J__J L�-I ' ` I 1 1 I 1 1 ( I I I IL'1l l�w°'l�ff r=�I 1 I i I I I I II_ I �► • I / / +�o+ravAvr' .^., J-1J_wAlizi J-�JP.i LJ1L- / / r1- '1-1 r1-TT-Z-r1171' rT-17=, - rjrrT--T--� �-rrrr- / / _ L I I II---I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1=3 1 1 1 I I 1 I IL., : .4T 1 I 1 I 1 / / JTrll-'1 Fs-Hy 11,LJJJ II II-1J '*� LIJ�I ��I ) . 'i I / % Il 1 1 I 1 a II -x=;l I--r'r r— .f I1 I I fi I I I �__J L_1t1_ I r v I I I I 1---•1, F---1 1 P 1 1 I I ;Y 1 I 1 I A t l i I }_.m 1-L1w_J--J L--LL-Lr-LLJ_1_/ -<S\I I I I 1 1+--- -- 62"17 r• I I I I I I I 13W r--T-rAyT-rT-i rT-�, r- ,.C( }A-�L,LLiLJ-.L.L1.L_. 1 I I I I.I I w= I I I I -1'r C-7-f 7TT T�� '� \� , I I T-T--T=LJ�'LLLL_Ll_LL__41_J�L-d11L I I YJ F�\\ / I q I I 1 1•�7-r-r T rT r-1i3 = nrrru < \ \\ / r 1 I'11 I I .I I I I I�I---1 I I I I `` ` \ Y I I L1_1_-1--J LJ-1-1 A_L1-LJi 1--1LLLy ['-L`iL\iL / I 1I rZ-T1-T7 1 rrrrTT-r-r-r-1 r-1 ife/—T'2~jL"� 1 111 I I I I LJ I I I I I I I I I I.I e,e.,4 II I 1 1 ti I I I IJ j I I 1 1 I 1 I+I ifi*.S 1_-J1 1 1 1—Frr-1—T-1-1—r1 IV 4a.sf II 1 % I lit I I I I I III I I I I I I )I l /- 1---i I L__J\ 1 L 1-1-L1J-I-LLLL1_LJ-1-V✓� y"J^\� 1 I JONES AV.a 1 I 1 f . J L--1---1-- -..\\_. .. \\.. I .... ;. ob / r./ ._/'-i,eV 2Id Kw -J / \i / \ \��r'1` F=�Cr_1 Y ---- j y/t�/ .�. �\ r� oc• / -/�� \ \ \\ J 1 T� 11--1 / / r,y / //\ \ _ ,( <�`\ ' I / //'/ I '` l^�< y /\ \ram \y \/ / \ 1 \ 1 1 I. 1 / 1 //s..... •': i - / / • ;\\ •i� • \ \ \ I e• \ \----/// / �\ \ \ \ I� \ \\ = if / /I\\`-�\ • \ I I, If4 \ \ / / �1.(T\\-\4\ \\ \\ \ I let \ \ , I---- - .� 1'"\ 1 E �--/-'I Tr\ I \ \ I ------I-'F-T- \ \\I 1 \v ; yam\. ;\ \ \ \\ --------- .,P.. i� i `eX\ 1 _�----- \ \ .----1--1 ��S\\ I / ".WA I / \ I RIVEN mar \ ` \ \\ rya f• I. pla v �,�' 'MCA `( % I LA . - ' M - �- -•-'" � O( IIAleeR \\ i'gr .-0 • \\\§ *� / ' !�r !i, ;- -i• _-: l ,'KaM�rIS - -t € .r _ : _•.-- --- - -_�-- _ .! \ . . _ - _ '— � 0. ,,`(:-..--14; .% );:--....•.:;:-,---.3-7,4 ----,-1-1- _I-0,..„. __,.. le;,_re, _ • S. TH ST. ``+�\��ar�� .�` ' r�4 1F1 -/' `` �� , �: Q O �•'�- �1�� l• ' ` ;';f `P ��`\�� l\•Oi �i I I i STORAIWA MR--'' ' 44. :I 12 111 - Ir 1 (��7t9 /J9V , 'J7•., 6 1 lit o d • I !± � `� ;!', p,, I 1 ;' ,-TRACT - -- \ - `;.,\� „ •7 ,��J A :.A /►d 10; • ;:I W o I I Ali M. ..tom 1 \ .\7� `\ 1 I I /,'-'�,- - _:�..h4�,�1� ,O "8+,. ��' faCr `'SI Aa *la, O ,� w • NUUBER DELTA '�/ I=•-O� `l�0\ io...: ` ' , ,--`��� ,�1R'"�i . i. - �"J� z-- b•1 , 0 0 • Cl rJ�7e�o' �i� \�� \�� "G - , --�, -��R d q�` R O @I I O� - - CI 282712 �It ZI .\ �� \ C,Si `= ' -—---—- -—- -•,•�'\\ •i{,e: •`j�GS., G -� 1 N. ;4 n Q,7`,�-.F Ra,i , r.`IL �►� '7.�'�•.. ° o .�•�...� ��:OAD O p �9 „`�i• \LJ - 5e u I 4'4 ,1' :, �� rr` ,\ a aaCr�erAI , O.‘;',..1 �" / IIi v� L\\ Vc.,- iw .l �y i ,��� d �Q:�•'. p 1 \ i�• �iQ � i3O ..• i• p'Y' 0,q 1 • 01 �i� • ,— ' I I .\ I A ` , t/S - - - \"; i I, O1, �O 4�' ic,i 0! : .p' 1 , �r1 I `., T 1���1\. ' °_ - i,' 1 il(1Y//, 4 , °iiI. - aGill:_pp. `�11 I i . ,iro , ,9',: , 1 ►�I, % \\ 1 II ---- y � , am . Q,„/ 1.— 1 I 1 _n ,�. ._' S7�•,i�4. ' / r Cr)n ({v � •Ql•Ili Ri0 ', 1,,/ ....I• ea \\I `�,�1�A.�'. ,\ .O J - ' O. \- _-✓�i Srb ,S1,:A 5J • A t- m O pi;'iv Q \%�%1 \,.v / O rice;,��'•' `' , _ .I , 0 \ / I a �� b 14! �� „ _ vi % Q I ` \\ ' '�Iiff �1--,dal• i. -p..•'_(•4'0\-,\ l r 1r � .�/� / \ \\ \ i� I�',8II � I W I.*AiMaatO PARK ., • .`\ ,ate-.` ` ` -%...�j�' '131 1 1 l J ii s4 s:p a'; j \\\ •\\ �1 O I d ; o `��-;`°_. - e _SS`9 ;11 Il�,`� I?-: 't I • 00A.• / \ >/ i fi '" • I ♦ I i ' aI_ 114 dl�i IS O o, r \.. —. ,0 Ili n• I I\\. \I \.� JI l7,a+P,O,p 1 ,Q Q I y-' 41,, 11-1 r .01 PP�� / \\ I-• NOM: `�'\v\; `,\\ A�J rcQ II O O 'wj ?f-/'r, `\-i it'w„Np I g p g p 7 I ENTIRE SIZE TO OE CLEARED. �_�` 6 11 E G ' \', •-' �Z 4 0 1 /�'7 , . `r I �----- NOIE CP�'=i.'1' ^,•. ; :w✓ ,,rl �\1�1 `,I 1 t �������a I APPLICANT RETAINS DIE RICNT `�r-' ` �,S , a' I, /`�I '1 I 1 f I— y TO SAW AoanavAt TREES ` ' a Z , !l - r -1 cc 1- jj (( rP SITE CONDIROVS PERMIT. [' LDS. /• \' 0 I I O i I I I Ii 1: I TRACT` • 4,• -- 7,' CCU Q I Is. I IQ iii 3 TREE LEGEND \\�\S rl t, .w --'� 'i� • ,f + .7 _ 'I I a 41 I e MAAR v °C'l ♦ • �1�.I\ \e, - \ \. `-1.._.'2�,.'1C^ 1 j r I I . COWER AS NOICO 4' 'r.b� \ 11 Isr:�_: 1 22., 0`-s '' 1 R•-,T' ,,rO OCOOUOIS \},- •' `,`, 1\ r 2,• r R.ONDUAL Ott OR UOSITR .{1 IIr'-7.•NRrO DCCd/d,.f /••. , "`` \ \ 'e I i �� `� 1 I I I O RONO IAL IOtt as CLVSICR �I \` :y 9 1 r 1 1 / N•♦LAROCR NRTO OCCOLO,S �� [ . ' ( J .1 \ I hOrWrAL tart OR CLOVER ``LT Y ` \'i ' � \O_ ''•56 ,/i\ �� /e I • ` � �p �1 .' \ a. or ^ � ' \ 1 \ �� i �\ \ \\ %o 1 I - \\ > . "�i� ,♦ __ \\\ ' \\ - \\,/ �. r • • A., 4 • i \\ I 1 ioow''' )' ,a/ / I I 1 II t' S\fi t• 1r.--,--- . I 1 ��1 C� `��� \\ \t,nervla,-f,,'411"sf1 Gj� G I I II \\ �\ _.tnsaev�'[2 y\ `'•e+ I vim, un. .a i•liaer+,iI' / .. I 1 11 \ —�AIY. I '' Y ' p . n. ...._ ...;�r� :a c .• .y( 1'OL IG1.�9MYER 9-rah \ \ ,' 4 , • �`. i4�a7��'.�G'�9s 1. . -- eu.�a.,n „e. .oM.,• rn000 \ �� \ �� �t . mI . aoT-.Ir —.. s4....7.4 LA ' ��` rT .l �/� "(`irAi �rLi _-_.• -• 29 ey.n- .......... ____�Z _�_` \ RI r '+�YIRIQ'rY m,'f 1 �;, ;,, \• ,i`� . LL u —ST. ,1lry ne ,.� . i T , r1 ;/ I �\1 1NUMBCROCLrA v may' 1 `c1 IJl2B10" 25 00' SQ6B' I \1a \\`\C _� 1 t . I • ./ ` rc 1 C2 2827'12" 1, • `� �, Ai\` _ -1 IF: I A• ` �.� -_ ' = as I n' i ,� \• 4�\`�� y . �`ll ra T til `�` \ 5! • 1 -Lr°'en �'• Y .• 1.'ll.� .\ 1 roes- 1‘ , I t �I Sul .'' _' ; i 1 ` ,,t1.. ; I I `� t►� {mtCT -- �'• ` , / . 1 •111 ' 1_\S\ yy' .: 1 �. 1 I`i -`• �1 l �46 �fI�il,� �` �--60- 31 1 ` Jq- r :� I Iq� ♦', a- �� r III I,/ `. Ir 1. 91 k.z `tp .1 p I `���1*1�•\` ', 1, t2 r i m` •' /4- I �'i::Il{r ` ' :::. ., ��`` `��� 1riI `♦ -�1��.�1 S ,, 1C_�__II `�``5•�11 `� �� �� ' 1...' iI - 11■�■■y■■ \ ,,‘1‘‘) '1, J wu,r.� \` - .1�� `� J -I ',��`-"___� i.' 36 53 - .341/ \ r 1 `411,� 1 I, irgo ``\\ `I ` 'C` '4 / \•41' ;- -_.._ �) • : j ),it 11�•is I` • / ! 1 7 I .•1 I \ ' \ . 11�/ I / \ ip G!1 i H 1 \'r 1\ .����`�� _ lU,. �ti�r� 7 , i- g� Y `_- ,il'" I - j \ \ • II Ur 2 I � �.,,:_ T= �, ,'_'=l 0 11 10/,:-li'� ti;- , I. . \\,- ge 1 /�/ \```\ •\\>' y. ..r F ) / .• fil,: r --1 {• ALL LOTS TO NAVE MdNOUAL' <'.-• �:.;C*4. AP e 1 I - - ;�`-%- • ' / '1 I ---�6 -,;' 1; 1 alt Incl�E1`% // I INFILTRATION SYSTEMS FOR P . � - T� ,16- .13• '! I 'r \_•.. I°Nt:iAR p1t11 / ROOF&ORIKWAY RUNOFF. I .`♦• L♦\, \ I 1 i I 1' 9.W..a ulw 1 lal:\ ,1/.---J /r`��\ E E G 6 \ 1\ �. �-..... ',' . Imo' II I _` , .` .I J ----. • 8 d y Err. OF c:Hrcrr "..�� I re I _.' /3� "'ll 1 co ----- t A I MVP ArirrOLD PARK 1 \ . I " 1 �� 1 ` r 9 b I *`� -.,�O�*�.\c\ - , �._.•i 1. 1 \- I y — \ �':1i 11 ' . `- Z�-`3f• "' 1 r fk‘ I I \ `."•111 \`• JD• --1 'II , 2!1 I II I 1 I • 1 \ `�-� ``-s‘8:lb::4\...I.:1Da:%1.1:1:-•••••-•''\s/-.6:114,\111".111;:-.. 20 `\:::)\--ssi:::::��l 1I:\\ \ / \:1*\'1110Lis.:1)6.-...I°4:.: 1:/I . a 41, CITY OF RENT ON IV*ii: '-',7T.,--Are ' • ea a • isIL Office of the City Clerk • . dr4114 1 40 VOlio• ' 15'0 1 • .:,14',„.A...M .. • __,_; South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 to i.- -0 c3 11 uA co , t . ... . if. n n -f:' ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED '''.?-.:, - 3158401 14L2P-0 W:"3*- it til it ii-pFAI et-. \kick. M ,civ-i-cw \ Jason Donahue Fa) 9 I Ca/77(i-bP-A, 11-) 419 Cedar Ave. So. - ,.. t) •2of-,., . •,...,i.si,..,4 . . Renton WA 98055 \' `r•-:CL.-.11"--, OFfc E. . , ... Ind 02 C ; i A D D R E S S E F cf-7-7:1. - ' 01 told co, UNIKNOWN:' ' .6. ''' {5.5 . ,:._ , . • - -.:.., .. .0:1•=11 - _ City of Renton Municipal Code:Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110-Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may. submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) 111 calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents,including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal; and additional letters submitted by the parties: (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: Nopublic hearing shall be held by_the:City Council..No new or additional evidence or testimony'shall'be accepted by the City Council unless.a:showing.is made bythe.: Party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably.have been available at the time ofthe' hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to•the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the'appellant. In the absence of any entry upon 10 the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony,it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord.43.89,.1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordin l 7. Council Action': If;'upon appeal from a recommendation ofthetHearing Examiner:upon,an application submitted pursuant"to Section RMC'4=1-050F2'andF3,:and:after examination.of-the..reCork the Council determinestliat a substantial'error-it fact or law exists in the record;=or,that a.recommendation of the Hearing Examiner'sliould be-disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for.reconsideration;or enter-its own decision upon the'application. . . •. 8. Decision Documentation:.:Inany-event,the decision of the•.City Council•shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other that those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of r this Section. (Ord. 4660,3-17-1997) 40, CITY OF RENTON ••« ;, City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen February 15, 2001 APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Hill Community Association represented by Ruth Larson RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 1/25/2001 on Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA-00-053, PP, ECF and LUA-00-149, AAD. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Heritage Renton Hill request for preliminary plat has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. • NOTICE IS;HEREBY.GIVEN,that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the;Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 19,;2001 in the 7tli floor conference room of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be • made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. Copies of the'appeal are available in the City Clerk office. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Mariyyi ters,en. City Cler Cable Manager; Attachment cc:, . Parties of Record ,(156).. : . Neil Watts;Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055'- (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 Co This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 4, return to sender ,D fee due 600 • First-Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid •L SFt3 Permit No. G-10 a © CITY OF RENTON r _n Office of the City Clerk '` / ... .. .... . . . . . .. .. .. . . r. L• Washington 98055 P RS 15'0 t •• ;»'6' ... ; 1055 South Grady Way-Rentonz i , „ �? ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED y ! • - '""ii %7Sn:, 12 U,•, r- .r.e I W �n� • > n �2Y1 K-�/"'+" CITY OF i_ 4 1�.1 to 11. et,( `� �+ MIA ,� Mr.&Mrs.Larry Welch J 2 Cad Ir��y (, ���� � °d t1 G�' � • 310 Renton Avenue South ; Y JJ V .. • Renton WA 98055. I •WELC510 900552006 1500.17 02/20/01 RECEIVED pOCe: bL6C� � CITY CLERK'SOF ir FORM 9547 WELCH I PO BOX 819 Q_ u) • ' . RENTON WA 98057-0819 r2uIOA44 ►5 IVLS ache 98 855 • ILI„I„I,II„„LI,I,i,IlI,,,I„L,,,IILI ULI.,.,II,I T 6sa2. a rS i i E i":c. 833 Z w mod, ADDRESSEE d_; ki� l L_— ` t5__?/, rm2:3 G I1t1itlttltilttiib1itltltttlitttlulttiltitltiilttttltltttlliI _ a 0 CITY OF RENTON sn- amIL of'the City Ckrk Office It."-44 CC -'.2 ...et - •c ''') FEB 15'0 1 '?..,42.1.4 — 0 3 2 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 to H- UI PRSR1 f 1RST-CLASS SEA NM ffil 021 kt1.1_1 . PBmETE.R - ' ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED --'1,4 '71 584P 1 lgR_,W5,7',,4:f.:- • CITY OF FiLi\!-P.:A•I 011 FEB 2 2 2601 <t% Mr. George Salurmini ;Al „ 00A,r, . -se 519 Renton Avenue South rellfocialr,' ‘-'1 '' mISO% RECEIVED Renton WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S.OFFir.:E ' Atteinged - - NO S ICIP`,7, - 47)Eli 0 tg. Al°S uci7 S:'• - Ivo c.UCh 46, . • -----_. 0 Nati -- •,, snit& 0"t1." • ---....• ^, ''- I-- s i/••• -I NO SUCH r 8\3°A kOORESS , - - .-. °I Nd ,o) ..._. i RETURN To SENDER 4. - ..1/ -?).' IFIRIP 98E1 gi IA -se,r.stsr-.,/74.2::B2. iiiiiiiuldilmilhihilliiimilhdimilifiliffilimilli - City of Renton Municipal Code:Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may. submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all:of the pertinent documents,including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal,and''additional letters submitted by the'-parties:(Ord:•3658,9-13-82) • 4. Council-Review Procedures:- No public hearing shall be held by.,the.City,Council.:,No new.or.; ._. additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the.City Council:unless a,showing,is made by_the :. party.offering the evidence that the'evidence could not reasonably.have been-ayailable,at the time of the hearingbefore the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before theHearing Examiner. (Ord, 43.89,.1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for.reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the:decision of the Examiner accordingly:' 7. :Council-Action If;upon appeal from:a recommendation of the.:Hearirig_Examiner_:upon;an application submitted pursuant to.Section-RMC'4 1'-050F2 and:F3; and after,examination of-the record,gthe Council determines.that a:substantial:errorin fact or:ilaw:exists,in thei.rec.ord,or,that a recommendation of the 4-lea-ring Examiner:'should be;disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to ::the•Examiner for:reconsideration :orenter-its owndecision upon;the application. „_:• . 8. Decision Documentation:;Iiir any=event;.the.decision of the.City.:Council shall be in writing and_shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) . .. - . 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660. 3-17-199.71 :. CITY" OF 'RENTON ..LL;' City Clerk Jesse Tanner,:Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen February'T5,.2001 ,` -APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Hill Community.Association' represented by Ruth.Larson , RE Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision-1/25/2001 on,Heritage Renton'Hill Preliminary. , Plat,- File No:.LUA-00-053,PP, ECF and LUA-00-149 AAD. To Parties of Record:, , Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter;8,Renton City Code'of Ordinances; written appeal of the:Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Heritage Renton Hill request for preliminary plat has,beeri•'. ,filed with;the City Clerk: • • In accordance with Renton Municipal cede'Section 4-8-110F.,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal;' ; NOTICEIS.,HEREBYGIVENthatAthe;written appeals'and;.other:pertinent documents will be. reviewed by thefCounc'il's Planning and;Development Committee at 3:30 p.m:on Thursday; April 19;.200:1 in the:7th`floonconference room of the Renton Muncipal.Building, 1055 South' Grady Way,'Renton, 98055. 'The'recoimmendation of the Committee will be presented for consrderation,by:the full Council.at a subsequent Council meeting ".Attached is a•copy,::of the Renton Municipal Code:regarding appeals.of Hearing Examiner decisions Or recommendations. Please note that the`City Council will be considering the'merits' of:the appeal based upon the written record previously established: ;Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence:could not reasonably have been available at the,prior hearing held :..by tle•Hearing Examiner;-no further evidence ortesti-mony;on this matter will be,accepted by the City Council. Copies of the,appeal are available in the City:Clerk office:. For,additional information assistance,please feel free to call: Sincerely; ` Cit ,Cler Cable•Mana er Attachnient i., ,,,-R'• ;;;;; ,.;; • I,r i<� 'l-i'�}i •F`�' wFi'r: ., i:_i?f;',�i�.l' ( _ .. •fRecord; ..156 ,.': I .�} .�, • .'\ ). �' .'>.1:�,� i�4i sJ.�.r,. '�i Iti;..1���i l `�� t .b_i jj Fi �1•" • ..'71,f:-1 i atts,� Development"Se ices. : ent`Services: i•s_. . Elizab.eth�Higgin's;.Developm ;�, Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner;, 1055''South Grady Way.- Renton,.Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-65.16 - :::This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • ._ a ego CITY OF RENTON ' Office of the City Clerk ,,. .q �./10111 0 !-- FEB 1 5'0 1 r° .�`` — 0 .3 2 « 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 1. 98055 1�y{�y+��yH yy� �y ty- to CO �{q r) 1��y{ � Y ! SR1 F J F7t5.1 1 •5dI S SEAL II a;1 021 r / L1 !'I..!!*t G'T?R .•� ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 1531101 uF'1s�?,o,: xr:4 r_r kr -ic -61 141 I I 1r)pa ( ifosolv rk--, . tte Secs -.,..- <�.;�"s ,� Alexander lejen� t r,-;_ � ��+5 A.F. and Nancy ,� e, y• err:„." . . vC P4.K'WAA GJ�j y',. 3 1518 Cedar Avenue South - O L lh��I Renton,WA 98055 ��not r - 'I _ `1j i:i i Y Cu ''`.:'` " . �NOy' !`t,;1)=.SUCN a ti w so ,` , , ' . ` ADDRESS CD LP - -------- -- ---------------- ---- --- ------ ---- u ------- a I RETURN 1D SENDER a Wd . c ill ! ! - __ -;.-- 1 Y ]. _ 1 ! ! f ] ! ill �•31� { ••':y���'���+—..+�•'.e'.�,. �]!!i!i!:]ll�iiilf!!?!T!]lliiiiil!l�lii�lli�itil2lll:51!!!!!i! •. CITY OF RENTON bia . City Clerk 7 e Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen February 15, 2001 APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Hill Community Association represented by Ruth Larson RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 1/25/2001 on Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary • Plat, File No. LUA-00-053, PP, ECF and LUA-00-149, AAD. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Heritage Renton Hill request for preliminary plat has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals arid other pertinent documents will be reviewedlay the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, • April 19,:.2001 in the'7th floor,conference room of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, 98055'.''The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a_copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will,be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the' City Council. Copies of the appeal are available in the City Clerk office. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call. Sincerely, • Marilyi . terser. City Cler Cable Manager er. Attaclument;_ ... }.. . . . ...1 .. _ 3 : till. il.l - .. cc: Parties of Record ,(156)' Neil'Watts 'Developinent Seivices ., • Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services.` Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner" `' • 1055 South Grady Way Renton; Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 ::'This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer City of Renton Municipal Code.,Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City. Council all Of the pertinent documents,including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord)3658, 9-13-82) _ . 4. Council Review Procedures::No public hearing shall be held by the City Council.:No new or.. additional-evidence or testimony shall be acceptedby.the!City Council.unless a showing.is:made by the. party offering the evidence that the:evidence could,not reasonably have.been:available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record - before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord, 4389,.1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for:reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council=Action: If;;upon appeal from.a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Secti'on-RMC:4-1-050E2end F3;and;after,examination of.therecord,the Council f,determines-that a substantial error in fact:or;law:-exists in the record, or.that a recommendation of the <.Hearing Examiner should be-:disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to :The Examiner for reconsideration, or, enter its own decision upon the application. : 8. Decision Documentation::Inany event,the Aecision.ofthe City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) • 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) CITY )F RENTON .•,.�"� City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen February 15, 2001 APPEAL FILED BY: '. Renton Hill Community Association ' represented by Ruth Larson . RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 1/25/2001 on Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary , Plat, File No. LUA-00-053, PP, ECF and LUA-00-149, AAD. To(Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances,written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Heritage Renton Hill request for preliminary plat has been filed with the City Clerk.. : In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F.,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal:- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, 2001 in the 7th floor conference room of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South- Grady Way,Renton, 98055. The recommendation'" of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the-full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations: Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held. by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. Copies of the appeal are available in the City Clerk office. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call. Sincerely, Mariyyi . terser ' City Cler Cable Manager • Attachment. cc: Parties of Record (156) Neil Watts,Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services • Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2501 /FAX(425)235-2513 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) • calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council- Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389; 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) • Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® i i. Mr.Ken Adams Mr.James Baker Mr. &Mrs.Thomas Barr 706 Renton Avenue So. 524 Mill Avenue So. 802 High Street Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Ms.Dianne Beatty Mr. &Mrs.Brian Beckman Mr.Pat Bellport 1730 SE 7th Court 435 Cedar Avenue So. 411 Cedar Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.&Mrs.Barton Bennett Mr.Douglas Bergquist Mr. &Mrs.Mike Bishop 1807 SE 7th Court River Ridge Estates Homeowners Assoc. 326 Renton Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 1801 SE 7t Court Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Dino Boscolo Mr.&Mrs.Claude Bouchard Ms.Ruth Bradley , 915 High Avenue So. 1506 Beacon Way South 709 High Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Douglas Brandt Ms.Darlene Bressan Mr. &Mrs.John Burkhalter 610 Renton Avenue So. 901 High Avenue So. 901 Jones Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Margaret Burkhalter Ms.Dana Calhoun Ms.Eleanor Cantrell 715 Jones Avenue So. Mr.Robert Davis 1416 South 7`h Renton WA 98055 433 Cedar Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Ralph Carter Mr.Timothy Cogger Mr. &Mrs. Barry Conger 630 High Avenue South 609 Grant Avenue South 1301 South 9`h Street Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.Bert Custer Ms.Gina Custer Ms. Cheryl Danza 714 Cedar Avenue So. 1209 South 7th Street 706 Renton Avenue So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. Robert Elliot Mr. &Mrs.Quentin Ellis Mr.Dale Fountaine 300 Renton Avenue So. 715 High Avenue South 617 Cedar Avenue South, Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Don Faull Sheri Frank/Grant Anderson Mr. &Mrs. W. Free 804 Renton Avenue So. 426 Cedar Avenue South 1012 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 //.\ AN/ Trkire Aririracc i aims i ncQ, c-1<n® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Mr.Frank Gallacher Mr.Bob Gambill Ms.Lily Garfield 719 Jones Avenue South Seattle Public Utilities, 10`h Floor 265 Maiden Lane East Renton WA 98055 710 Second Avenue Seattle WA 98112 Seattle WA 98104-1714 Ms.Patricia Gilroy Ms.Rosemary Grassi Ms.Kathy Griffin 535 Renton Avenue So. PO Box 1188 (422 Cedar Av. S) 1425 Beacon Way South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Ann Grinolds Mr.Manly Grinolds Mr.Roger Grinolds 324 Cedar Ave. So. 1223 South 3'd Street 330 Cedar Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.John Guiliani Ms.Bambi Gunderson Mr.Russ Haag 1400 South 7`h Street 1107 South 4`1'Street 704 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Cynthia Halse Mr.Frederick Hartley Mr. &Mrs.Dan Hemenway 15404—167th Place SE 701 High Avenue South 1712 SE 7th Court Renton WA 98058 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Sharon Herman/Chuck Lyden Ms.Pat Hodgson Hopkins and Chombers 711 Jones Avenue South 620 Renton Avenue South PO Box 691 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Margaret Houser Diane Hyatt/Terry Stange Mr. &Mrs.W. Jaeckel 2331 SE 8th Place 720 Cedar Avenue South Falcon Ridge Newsletter Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 2342 SE 8`h Place Renton WA 98055 Mr.Bill Johnson Mr. &Mrs.Phil Johnson Mr.Wayne Jones,Jr. 1425 Beacon Way South 350 Renton Avenue South Lakeridge Development Inc. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 PO Box 146 Renton WA 98057 Ms.Ames Koestl Mr. &Mrs.Ken Kraght Ms.Ruth Larson 428 Renton Avenue South 527 Renton Avenue South Renton Hill Community Association Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 714 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Randy Lamke Ms. Elizabeth Lewis Mr. &Mrs.Dwayne Liston 415 Cedar Avenue South 1525 South 6th Street 17703— 114`h Place SE Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 nAVEl'?Y Address Labets Laser 5160® • Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Ms.Barbara Lux Mr.Robert Lux Mr. Carl Maas 1412 South 9`h Street 1410 South 7th Street Ms.Kathy McGatlin Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 1724 SE 7th Court Renton WA 98055 Mr.Louis Malesis Ms.Mary MacDonald Mr.&Mrs.Michael Mack 1718 SE 7th Court 802 Cedar Avenue South 906 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr.Keith Moberg Mr.Eric Mastor Mr. &Mrs.Don Miles 627 High Avenue South 808 Renton Avenue South 532 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Roseanne Nolan Mr. &Mrs. Clint Morse Marianne Nicol/Mark Johnson 2048 SE 8th Place 525 High Avenue South 316 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Cathy O'Neill Ms.Elsa Norris Mr.Bentley Oaks 575 High Avenue South 1513 South 7th Street 1321 South 7th Street Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Paul Ossorio Mr.&Mrs.Deone Perlatti Mr. Gino Petralia 708 Renton Avenue South 1520 South 9th Street 813 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Janice Potter/Mr.Dwight Potter Ms.Josephine Potter Ms.Paula Provin Falcon Ridge Association 1314 South 7`h Street 712 Renton Avenue South 2411 SE 8th Place Renton WA 98055-3065 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ms.Dana Reiman Mr.Wayne Rossman Mr. George Salurmini 1410 Beacon Way South 533 Grant Avenue South 519 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs. Slapnick Mr. &Mrs.Louis Sutter Mr.Rick Thibodeau 531 Grant Avenue South 721 High Street 1000 High Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs. Lynn Thrasher Mr.Mario Tonda Joe Vanderpool/Elsa Norris 904 Grant Avenue South Mr.Victor Tonda 1513 South 7`h Street Renton WA 98055 1308 Beacon Way South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 /1�.< AMSrlife Aricirrss 1_ahw15 I ncor {icr • Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Mr. Jack Wardell Mr.&Mrs.Larry Welch Mr.James Wilhoit 523 Renton Avenue South 310 Renton Avenue South 910 Grant Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Rich Yarbrough Mr.Dean Yasuda Mr.Dick Zugschwerdt 338 Renton Avenue South 2058 SE 8th Place 802 Grand Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Bill Collins Mr.Kevin Oleson Mr. &Mrs. Mark DeWitt 420 Cedar Avenue South Renton School District#403 501 Renton Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Transportation Department Renton,WA 98058 • 1220 North 4`h Street Renton WA 98055 Mark&Kimberly K.Mehlhaff David&Victoria Miles Rod Kunnanz 532 Grant Avenue South 1510 South 6th Place 810 High Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Marty L.Zander Dan O'Rourk Debra Jones 806 High Avenue South 501 Cedar Avenue South 1800 SE 7th Court Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 PO Box 146 Renton WA 98057 A.F. and Nancy Alexander Steve Johnson Robert Mountjoy 1518 Cedar Avenue South 1514 Beacon Way South 810 High Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Debra Goltiani Darlene Moore Jason Donahue 811 Jones Ave. South 1511 So. 9th St. 419 Cedar Ave.So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Newell/McSherry Elizabeth Prescott Mr. &Mrs. Gerald Hanger 815 Renton Ave. So. 435 Cedar Ave. So. 905 Jones Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Ruth Helsey Rachel Johnson/Mykel Papke Resident Marvin Wright 620 Grant Ave. So. 707 Renton Ave. So. 604 Grant Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Camron Smith Grant Anderson Roger Knutson 2140 SE 8`h Place 426 Cedar Ave. So. 805 Jones Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 P /I� AVERY® Address Labels Laser SiA00 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Mr.&Mrs.Richard Weitz Mr.&Mrs.Johnson Hugo Chaves 718 Renton Ave.So. 1333 Beacon Way So. 326 Cedar Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Gilroy Paul Lammer Jack Holt 1316 So. 10th Street _ 15234 SE 176`h P1. 1517 So. 6th St. Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98055 Resident Residents Mr. &Mrs.Mike Fulfer 300 Renton Ave. So. 316 Renton Ave. So. 1729 SE 7th Court Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Mr. &Mrs.Egan Mary Breda Jeff Fettinger/Martin Cibis 810 Grant Ave. So. 900 Grant Ave. So. 604 Grant Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Steve Briggs Tomac Patricia Gilroy 600 Grant Ave.So. 912 Grant Ave. So. 535 Renton Ave. So. Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Melanie Thompson Resident Resident 1307 So.9th 626 Renton Ave. So. 1724 SE 7th Court Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Resident Betsy Munson Norman Perry 801 Jones Ave. So. 623 Cedar Avenue So. 1224 South 7th Street Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Nancy Liston 1518 Beacon Way So. Renton WA 98055 r VERY Address Labels I acpr 614n® `Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Ann M. Gygi Jennifer Steig Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson Peterson Consulting Engineering 500 Galland Building 4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, 1221 Second Avenue Suite 200 Seattle,WA 98101-2925 Kirkland, WA 98033 Ryan Fike Dana Calhoun Bennett Development 433 Cedar Avenue S 9 Lake Bellevue Dr., Ste. 100-A Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98004 Larry Hobbs Transportation Planning& Bill Collins Engineering,Inc. 420 Cedar Avenue S 2223 112th Avenue NE, Ste. 101 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98004 Mark McGinnis Jeff Schultek Geotech Consultants 613 Grant Avenue S 13256 NE 20th St., #16 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98005 Linda McManus 530 Renton Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 John Nelson Peterson Consulting Engineering 4030 Lake Washington Blvd. NE, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Mark Mehlhaff 532 Grand Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Wendy Fulfer 1729 SE 7th Ct. Renton, WA 98055 Mike Fulfer 1729 SE 7th Ct. Renton, WA 98055 • Mark Johnson 316 Renton Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 1.4:AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® February 15, 2001 APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Hill Community Association represented by Ruth Larson RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision 1/25/2001 on Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA-00-053,PP, ECF and LUA-00-149, AAD. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances,written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Heritage Renton Hill request for preliminary plat has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, 2001 in the 7th floor conference room of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. Copies of the appeal are available in the City Clerk office. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call. Sincerely, Maril tersen City Cler Cable Manager Attachment cc: Parties of Record (156) Neil Watts,Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Fred Kaufinan, Hearing Examiner City of Renton Municipal Code;Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 43,89,.1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) CITY )F RENTON ..LL .¢ Hearing Examiner- Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.:Kaufman CITY OF RENTON! . . February 12;2001 FED 1 2 900i ... , RECEIVED CrrY CLERK'S OFFICE Ruth Larson,President Renton Hill Community Association 714 High Avenue.S Renton, WA 98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration,Renton Heritage Hill " - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings LUA00-149,AAD andLUA0O-053,PP;ECF • Dear Ms:Larson: This office received a request for reconsideration regarding;this matter and the response follows... First,this office does not discount that there will be impacts on the community,both.short-lived', impacts and long-term impacts. The;short-lived(which`itself-is a;relative term).impacts will be. the concrete impacts of development, iincluding construction'.traffic'and noise: The long-term ' - :' impacts will be increased.traffic and noise from;new:residents That not mean that those impacts will create an overall untoward impactas required for a SEPA determination of significance. . This office will generally address the coricerns-in the manner used by the request. Page 8,#21: The issue was the•proposed reduction in hauling truck trips due to a change in • ' grading.plans. The applicant proposed to more closely:balance the cut and fill: The change in grading plans is now considered,part of the application and cannot be altered without submitting'a - new application. The party that ultimately develops the site is not relevant to the permit as reviewed'and altered. The ultimate developer would be bound'.by the application as it was reviewed and.approved. Stafford Crest as well'as'a number of large apartment complexes have • • all resulted in construction traffic similar to if not larger than the construction traffic anticipated. It is not so significant as to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Page 8,#22: The overall impacts of additional traffic including LOS were considered by the' documents and bolstered by the.testimony: There will be additional traffic, and there will be a fraction of a second delay at the signal-controlled intersection which will not be noticeable:'The • • LOS for the various intersections,which is currently excellent,will not be changed other than that. ' fractionaldelay. Therc is no question that the hill and its-various.routes_ are quite steep,but the entire record demonstrates that traffic can negotiate it satisfactorily:. • Page 9,#24:Again;the record demonstrates that the hill is-now negotiated by,current residents and can be similarly negotiated by new residents. Staff supported:the applicant's studies that the sight distance is acceptable.. The record is closed. The appellant had the burden at the hearing or . j" hearings and the information submitted is not timely at this point. - 1901�2001 1055 South Grady'Way-.Renton;_Washington_98055..-'(425)..43'0-6515 .'Oy- . . .Thispapercontains 50'recycledmatenal,20 f post consumer'` . .- • Ruth Larson Page 2.. Page 10,#34: The availability of dial-up service is not crucial to whether or not the subject proposal has more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. Page 10,#38: As noted in the determination,roadway maintenance is determined on need,and if the roadway deteriorates, it will be scheduled for repair whatever the surface or subsurface conditions. Page 12;#9: Sight distance was discussed above. Alone or coupled with the other issues presented on appeal did not present evidence necessary to overcome the burden on the appellants in this decision. Pages 17 and 22 both reflect the minutes and the summarized testimony. This office will not comment on testimony. Page 24,#18: The construction of the overpasses=ineans.that access to the hill is not completely blocked by passing railroad trains as it had been in the past'--It may be inconvenient to reach or. leave the hill,but no more so than for-other residents of South Renton when trains run through town. \`Z Page 24,#25: The City has a Set of adopted policies on how traffic.is to be evaluated. Those policies were utilized,and there is capacity tohandWtliejraffic. As a matter of policy review,. this office attempted to reduce traffic irnpactsto some:extent byreducing the total number of lots. This recommendation toy-the;Council;went;beyondmere;technical issues and dealt with the more personal impacts of the traffic'on those residents along the commute route. This recommendation also went against stated City Council policy density reduction by the Hearing Examiner was not generally appropriate.;It seemed that in`these circumstances the balancing of impacts " demanded a reduction;even"if that reduction was modest. Page 25,#26:There will be more traffic.That is:clearly stated. The way.LOS is calculated shows that there is capacity for mire'cars, and..that'LOS will not"suffer. Add one new home to an existing block and one neighbor will notice,the change,That, again, is not refuted. :There is no doubt that residents will notice more traffic. There`will be even less traffic with the reduction of the plat to 50 homes from the proposed 57 homes. The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and did not indicate any new concerns over serving the existing community. . Page 25;.#28:Many areas of the City have less than standard roads,both in terms of width and in terms of grade. Residents on West Hill above the airport have similar roads,and those in Windor Hills and those near Group Health have steep grades. Residents living along Lake Washington have rail blocked access and one lane roads. The City is either blessed or cursed by interesting terrain features. The subject site was clearly reclassified to R-8 to allow up to eight dwelling units per acre. That density was reduced somewhat by the recommendation to the City Council to- allow a 50 lot plat. If the City Council chooses, it may modify its adopted policies and/or change the Zoning: This office has worked within the laws that govern this proposed development at this: time. • • Ruth Larson Page 3 • In conclusion,nothing short of leveling the hill will resolve the purported problems But the record does not show that developing the subject site will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the overall environment. The technical analysis as well as the experience gained by reviewing the accident history and habits of Renton Hill residents demonstrates that this development can be accommodated, although it will affect,but not adversely.(as used in SEPA) affect,the current residents who live on Renton Hill..As this office.noted at the public hearing, there is no doubt that if some future development were proposed,these new residents will be right alongside the current residents attempting to preserve the quality of life esteemed by those now living on Renton Hill..That does not mean that new development does not fit or that it cannotbe accommodated: The record reflects that it can be accommodated. In closing,there is no reason to alter or reverse either the original decision on the SEPA appeal or' the Recommendation to the City Council to-approve.theIat. Since this office is aware that an appealhas:al`ready-been filed with the City Council and since this letter did not change the original decision;•there is no'reason to extend the appeal period. ?S. If this office can provide any_additional assistance;pleaser.feel,free to write.. Sincerely, Fred J.Kaufman 'y` Hearing Examiner _ ' FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer • Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts,Development Services Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services . City.Clerk Parties of Record CITY OF RENTON FEB 0 8 2001 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Numbers: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF Dated January 25, 2001 Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Date: February 7, 2001 February 7, 2001 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Request for Reconsideration File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 8, #21: "The original plans called for a substantial grade and fill effort...the number of truck trips would probably be reduced to approximately 750 trips. The original estimate would have generated approximately 3,700 trips." The applicant is not going to build or develop this property. This probable reduction of truck trips is not included as a recommendation, and probable is not binding to whoever does develop and build. (Probable: "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur...page 11; 4.c.) The number of trips generated by the construction itself (including but not limited to Cement trucks, Lumber trucks, construction workers daily trips, Sheet rock, roofing, and etc) are not addressed. Page 8, #22: "The fact is, transportation impact analysis including LOS information and sight distance information shows that the existing road system can handle the additional traffic including the additional approximately 50 to 60 vehicle trips that would be generated during the peak hours." The transportation impact analysis did not include sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So., the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include 1 • factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety"... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are not included regarding the problem sight area. Page 9, #24: The technical analysis would appear to show that at normal driving sitting position, the view is not significantly impaired. This statement leads to the request to add an addendum to EXH2O, including photographs. This technical analysis is not complete and therefore not accurate. Page 10, #34: While there is no public bus route serving the hill, residents can apparently use a dial-up service for vans. This statement is in error. "Dial-up service is restricted to the disabled and in some circumstances qualified seniors. The senior center will pick-up seniors, twice per week for lunch and to shop at two designated stores. Page 10, #38: "Renton Avenue was checked and it is four inches of asphalt over crushed rock." John Giuliani (see page 18) stated that when Renton Ave was repaved, he personally observed that all the asphalt was removed down to the dirt. New asphalt was placed directly on top of the dirt with no gravel base underneath to anchor it. When the City of Renton checked Renton Ave So, they drilled three holes and found crushed rock. Unfortunately they did not ask Mr. Giuiani where he watched the asphalt placed without any foundation. The sample holes were not in the area Mr. Giuiani observed. It would have taken one phone call to establish the location of the problem. The City's transportation people chose not to call therefore did not locate the problem area. Page 12, #9: The various analyses demonstrate that the LOS will not be substantially changed. The analyses also demonstrate that while there are 2 some constraints due to the steepness of the hill and the narrowness of the roadway, but that the additional traffic can be safely accommodated As with page 8, #22...The transportation impact analysis did not study sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So, the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety" ... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are certainly not included regarding the sight distance area. Page 17, John Nelson: Mr. Nelson stated that as a result of his analysis and actually driving the roads in question, he did not think there is any significant problem with sight distances on the roads in Renton Hill. Mr. Nelson did not include the convergence of traffic in his analysis. His analysis concerned one car. Many Residents of Renton Hill testified to the problems with sight distance on Renton Hill. Surely the testimony of those who deal with the convergence zone on a daily basis should carry more weight than someone who "actually drove the roads in question"a few times and then did analysis on a single vehicle. Please refer to the requested addendum to Exhibit 20. Page 22, Mr. Nelson: ...graphical measurements were made on 7th Avenue from the project site all the way down to Renton Avenue S and Cedar to the bottom of the hill. These were graphical measurements made on the computer. On-the-ground fieldwork was done all the way up Renton Avenue S. The Renton Hill Community Association has requested (no less than twice) that a road engineer make an on site physical determination of 3 grade percent be done at the 500 block of Renton Ave. S. A determination of grade percent using a topographic map does not provide the accuracy required for an exhibit that is given weight in an Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearing. The on-the-ground fieldwork was done only to provide measurement information and line of sight for a single vehicle. Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete. Findings. Page 24, #18: Reconstruction and realignment of I-405 during the last decade provided a second crossing of I-405, and both crossings were elevated and therefore removed the railroad crossing. This statement is in error. The realignment of I-405 did not provide an elevated crossing over the Railroad crossing on Mill Ave. S. The elevation only applies to the crossing of I-405. Daily the Spirit of Washington Dinner train passes thru the Mill Ave. S./Houser Way area at the foot of Renton Hill and blocks access to the Hill (twice for lunch and twice for dinner). Rail deliveries to The Boeing Company, Paccar, and Kenworth are all made on this Railroad track. Page 24-25, #25: Staff noted that the City anticipated an increase in overall traffic of approximately 50 percent, and that the 25 percent increase was reasonable. If the City of Renton Staff is anticipating and increase of 50 % in overall traffic — NO plat or permit should be approved until the Staff makes sure Cities roads are adequate to handle the increase. There should be some accountability to the tax paying residents who are forced to "adjust" to the amount of traffic generated by new housing and those who pass thru the City to get to the County. Inadequate City streets should have been considered at the same time the growth management act was enacted. That the Cities and the Counties did not figure this out at that time doesn't necessarily mean the problem should not be addressed now. Perhaps a building moratorium would give local governments time to resolve this problem. Page 25, #26: The traffic analysis shows that the major intersections serving this site, Main Avenue S and S 4th Street, Houser Way and Mill, Cedar and S3rd and Renton Avenue and S 7th will suffer no degradation in LOS. 4 In view of the fact that #18 on page 24 is in error and that the questions raised in a December 11, 2000 letter written by Keith Moberg ( see paragraph 8) to the Hearing Examiner have not been addressed, this item should be reviewed. Copy of letter attached. Page 25, #28: Staff did suggest that new residents would have to adjust to the conditions of access just as other residents on the hill have adjusted in the past, including other new residents. Adjustment to a problem does not make the problem go away. CONCLUSIONS: In reading the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner in the Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings it becomes clear that the safety issues have not been resolved. Item 14 admits that if access to this project from Puget Drive was granted "the narrow and steeps streets would not be a issue and the plat could be built to full density". The Hearing Examiner has admitted the problem is bad enough to reduce the number of houses built. The Hearing Examiner has not met the traffic requirements. There is no evidence that the reduction of houses built will reduce the impacts. There are no adequate provisions for traffic that would indicate this plat is in the Public Interest. The approval of this development would leave the residents of Renton Hill with a traffic/safety problem that is neither addressed or resolved. RCW 58.17.010 states:..The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; ... (complete text attached) RCW 58.17.110 states:..(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall 5 determine: (a) if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication...(complete text attached) Neither the City or the Hearing Examiner have fulfilled the requirements of the attached RCW's Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson, President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. Renton Wa. 98055 6 . LETTER FROM KEITH MOBERG (see para. 8) December 11, 2000 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton I am writing concerning the proposed Bennett Homes development on Renton Hill. I have attended the Bennett Homes informational meeting, Renton Hill Homeowners Assoc. meetings and the Nov. 12, 2000 meeting in your council chambers. While some questions have been answered I have a few of my own. I reside at 627 High Ave. S. less than 2 blocks from the proposed building site. The sheer number of proposed houses and the traffic associated with them has me questioning the safety and capacity of the existing road system. During construction which has been estimated at two years plus, there will be an additional semi trucks and trailers and various heavy equipment. Though you have received many written letters and voice concerns I have my own. As a professional firefighter I respond out of a Station that has over 5,000 runs per year. Time is critical on responses. The steepness of hills like Renton Hill slow extremely heavy vehicles like fire apparatus, trucks and heavy equipment. Due to the unique parking conditions on Renton Ave. S. and Cedar Ave. S. the ability of large vehicles to pass another is impossible. If my house were on fire or a family member was in a medical emergency these delays could be and are deadly. Magnify response times considerably if Renton Fire Department, Station 11 is out of quarters. Who in the City is willing to take responsibility for these delays? My next concern is the traffic light at the bottom of Renton Hill on Mill Ave. So. Presently it allows only three vehicles to proceed on a green light. A semi-truck and trailer equal the length of three cars. The new stop sign on Mill next to Station 11 and by old City Hall has traffic backed up to the intersection.of Mill and Houser. After construction 57 new homes will be added to our hill. That is 9.55 trips per day per house according to your impact statement. 540 trips generated on top of the 200 plus households equals an increase of 25% in homes and traffic on a hill to steep for buses and described as a large cul de sac in a 1978 traffic study. My concern has been and still is the increased traffic on our small neighborhood roads. If egress for the development was East of the pipeline barrier at Phillip Arnold Park I doubt you would have the problems you have now. Bennett Homes in their first meeting with our Assoc. admitted without the ability to access Renton Hill from the West, they weren't interested in the development. Though the planned development is not popular I realize the right of the School District to sell their property. I would question how the 10 acres was zoned with no one on the hill notified of any zoning change. My solution would be to rezone to larger building lots with fewer homes and have all access come from the East while maintaining the existing road block. With these or similar requirements met I scarcely believe you would have any major complaints. In conclusion Renton Hill is a unique neighborhood unlike any other in the City. The safety and character are prized by every resident. Change is evident but no small community should experience a 25% increase in size and population without the same percentage increase in road improvements and safety considerations. Thank you for your attention. Keith Moberg Presented to the Hearing Examiner during the hearing December 12, 2000, by Ruth Larson. Reference to RCW 58.17.110 (not new material) I would like to dispel some of the myths concerning Renton Hill. We did not oppose the River Ridge development. We welcomed it. None of the houses North of the Seattle water pipeline were on the City sewer system until the River Ridge developer applied for a permit that included a sewer line from this property to a connection on Renton Ave. So.All of the homes North of the pipeline from High Ave. So. Grant Ave. So. and on South 6th were on septic systems. All were old and extremely high maintenance. River • Ridge allowed residents to hookup to the City Sewer System. That also allowed four new homes to be built and three or four more are in the planning stages to be built on the North side of the pipeline. Renton Hill did not oppose the Falcon Ridge development. The original plan of Falcon Ridge called for it's main access from the Seattle pipeline road and the removal of the gate on the pipeline. When the plan was changed to access from Royal Hills Drive, there was nothing to oppose. When Falcon Ridge requested a second gate be placed at the South end of the pipeline road to prevent late night disturbances and illegal activity on the road, Renton Hill absolutely agreed and the gate was installed. The City of Renton seems to have adopted an"oh well" attitude to the increase of 25% more traffic on Renton Hill without acknowledging the 25% loss of safety factor. The City has covered themselves by the statement of possible coal mine problems with a rider on the titles of each property. We will hold the City responsible for any condition caused by this loss of safety. RCW 58.17.110 states (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. We want to know just how Renton Hill resident's interest will be served. The City of Renton television channel 21 has a statement listing the organizational structure. The final statement of this structure states, "Renton Citizens are of course at the top of our organizational chart." We will see. • REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 1 RCW 58.17 .010 Purpose. The legislature finds that the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and schoolgrounds and other public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and egress; to provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed subdivisions which conform to zoning standards and local plans and policies; to adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state; and to require uniform monumenting of land subdivisions and conveyancing by accurate legal description. [1981 c 293 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 1.] NOTES: Reviser's note: Throughout this chapter, the phrase "this act" has been changed to "this chapter. " "This act" [1969 ex. s . c 271] also consists of amendments to RCW 58 . 08 . 040 and 58 .24 . 040 and the repeal of RCW 58 . 16. 010 through 58 . 16. 110 . Severability -- 1981 c 293: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. " [1981 c 293 § 16. ] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.010.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 2 RCW 58.17 .110 Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication -- Factors to be considered -- Conditions for approval -- Finding -- Release from damages. (1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval . Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners. (3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than two acres and the donor has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased individual of good character, the city, town, or county legislative body must adopt the designated name. [1995 c 32 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 52; 1989 c 330 § 3; 1974 ex.s. c 134 § 5; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 11.] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.110.ht 02/06/2001 • REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON rage z. of L NOTES: Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 : See RCW 36.70A. 900 and 36 . 70A. 901 . 02/01/2001 February 15, 2001 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk/Cable Manager for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in the outcome of this matter. That on the 15th day of February, 2001, at the hour of 5:00 p.m., your affiant duly mailed and _placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision filed by Renton Hill Community Association, representated by'Ruth Larson (File Nos. PP-00-053; AAD-00-149). Marilyn !. ersen, City Clerk/Cable Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE msq tln,,day of February, 2001. Q uecS O / ./..._ewevvvo Suzan D. Lombard co co Qa Notary Public in and for t o State of /,r Oj',„?45.s , 00 Washington, residing at e'c<- �_ rr • © t �` NPR + APPEAL HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON C T G UNCIL FILE NO. a L �J D - p ecc FEEIO, OU� �.ul9DD `7/ ��I/� /� D � 1 /� RECEIVED APPLICATION NAME: R �z �D.ti( 4,4 on)Iry ��S(9P,JR i ERK'S OFFICE The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated ;T PA), 20 D/ . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: , /V 14)' Name: UT/-/ g SO.4..) Address: 7/4//,//,,z./ ,412E 5 , Address: 7/ / ,7/e, /t/ /7l) 5C:2 Telephone No. 12 z s'�' o2,9° Telephone No. 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary'l Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: G l rD i/1) m' g TT4-6,', o ,pod. c0/A-ia'Ts . (. e d4J Air4J dr it A Correction: l/ CONCLUSIONS: E, No. Error: t95 L,/a rr0 7/lif - gTr696,J5.0 z2oa 01471 Correction: C ". 4 OTHER: No. Error: /46 G-/S7 O /Ai TEE 7719C-/I/J 00CUM/tJ}75 01€2-- w Pe-a-/A L91-cce a.F-AlGlO ter¢ J Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision Or recommendation as follows: X Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: ADDRESS AND RECOMMEND SOLUTION TO Other THE CONVERGENT SIGHT DISTANCE PROBLEM IN THE 500 BLOCKOF RENTON AVENUE SOUTH,OR DENY PLAT REQUEST UNTIL THIS AND TRAFFIC PROBLEM IS RESOLVED. Ofie= Z`&"01 Appe, ant/Representati e Signature - Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. heappeal.doc 7 City of Renton City - City Council Copy (If appeal is filed.) - - • REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Numbers: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF Dated January 25, 2001 Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Date: February 7, 2001 February 7, 2001 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Request for Reconsideration File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 8, #21: "The original plans called for a substantial grade and fill effort...the number of truck trips would probably be reduced to approximately 750 trips. The original estimate would have generated approximately 3,700 trips." The applicant is not going to build or develop this property. This probable reduction of truck trips is not included as a recommendation, and probable is not binding to whoever does develop and build. (Probable: "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur...page 11; 4.c.) The number of trips generated by the construction itself (including but not limited to Cement trucks, Lumber trucks, construction workers daily trips, Sheet rock, roofing, and etc) are not addressed. Page 8, #22: "The fact is, transportation impact analysis including LOS information and sight distance information shows that the existing road system can handle the additional traffic including the additional approximately 50 to 60 vehicle trips that would be generated during the peak hours." The transportation impact analysis did not include sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So., the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include 1 factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety"... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are not included regarding the problem sight area. Page 9, #24: The technical analysis would appear to show that at normal driving sitting position, the view is not significantly impaired. This statement leads to the request to add an addendum to EXH2O, including photographs. This technical analysis is not complete and therefore not accurate. Page 10, #34: While there is no public bus route serving the hill, residents can apparently use a dial-up service for vans. This statement is in error. "Dial-up service is restricted to the disabled and in some circumstances qualified seniors. The senior center will pick-up seniors, twice per week for lunch and to shop at two designated stores. Page 10, #38: "Renton Avenue was checked and it is four inches of asphalt over crushed rock." John Giuliani (see page 18) stated that when Renton Ave was repaved, he personally observed that all the asphalt was removed down to the dirt. New asphalt was placed directly on top of the dirt with no gravel base underneath to anchor it. When the City of Renton checked Renton Ave So, they drilled three holes and found crushed rock. Unfortunately they did not ask Mr. Giuiani where he watched the asphalt placed without any foundation. The sample holes were not in the area Mr. Giuiani observed. It would have taken one phone call to establish the location of the problem. The City's transportation people chose not to call therefore did not locate the problem area. Page 12, #9: The various analyses demonstrate that the LOS will not be substantially changed. The analyses also demonstrate that while there are 2 some constraints due to the steepness of the hill and the narrowness of the roadway, but that the additional traffic can be safely accommodated As with page 8, #22...The transportation impact analysis did not study sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So, the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety" ... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are certainly not included regarding the sight distance area. Page 17, John Nelson: Mr. Nelson stated that as a result of his analysis and actually driving the roads in question, he did not think there is any significant problem with sight distances on the roads in Renton Hill. Mr. Nelson did not include the convergence of traffic in his analysis. His analysis concerned one car. Many Residents of Renton Hill testified to the problems with sight distance on Renton Hill. Surely the testimony of those who deal with the convergence zone on a daily basis should carry more weight than someone who "actually drove the roads in question" a few times and then did analysis on a single vehicle. Please refer to the requested addendum to Exhibit 20. Page 22, Mr. Nelson: ...graphical measurements were made on 7th Avenue from the project site all the way down to Renton Avenue S and Cedar to the bottom of the hill. These were graphical measurements made on the computer. On-the-ground fieldwork was done all the way up Renton Avenue S. The Renton Hill Community Association has requested (no less than twice) that a road engineer make an on site physical determination of 3 grade percent be done at the 500 block of Renton Ave. S. A determination of grade percent using a topographic map does not provide the accuracy required for an exhibit that is given weight in an Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearing. The on-the-ground fieldwork was done only to provide measurement information and line of sight for a single vehicle. Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete. Findings. Page 24, #18: Reconstruction and realignment of I-405 during' the last decade provided a second crossing of I-405, and both crossings were elevated and therefore removed the railroad crossing. This statement is in error. The realignment of I-405 did not provide an elevated crossing over the Railroad crossing on Mill Ave. S. The elevation only applies to the crossing of I-405. Daily the Spirit of Washington Dinner train passes thru the Mill Ave. S./Houser Way area at the foot of Renton Hill and blocks access to the Hill (twice for lunch and twice for dinner). Rail deliveries to The Boeing Company, Paccar, and Kenworth are all made on this Railroad track. Page 24-25, #25: Staff noted that the City anticipated an increase in overall traffic of approximately 50 percent, and that the 25 percent increase was reasonable. If the City of Renton Staff is anticipating and increase of 50 % in overall traffic — NO plat or permit should be approved until the Staff makes sure Cities roads are adequate to handle the increase. There should be some accountability to the tax paying residents who are forced to "adjust"to the amount of traffic generated by new housing and those who pass thru the City to get to the County. Inadequate City streets should have been considered at the same time the growth management act was enacted. That the Cities and the Counties did not figure this out at that time doesn't necessarily mean the problem should not be addressed now. Perhaps a building moratorium would give local governments time to resolve this problem. Page 25, #26: The traffic analysis shows that the major intersections serving this site, Main Avenue S and S 4th Street, Houser Way and Mill, Cedar and S3rd and Renton Avenue and S 7th will suffer no degradation in LOS. 4 In view of the fact that #18 on page 24 is in error and that the questions raised in a December 11, 2000 letter written by Keith Moberg ( see paragraph 8) to the Hearing Examiner have not been addressed, this item should be reviewed. Copy of letter attached. Page 25, #28: Staff did suggest that new residents would have to adjust to the conditions of access just as other residents on the hill have adjusted in the past, including other new residents. Adjustment to a problem does not make the problem go away. CONCLUSIONS: In reading the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner in the Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings it becomes clear that the safety issues have not been resolved. Item 14 admits that if access to this project from Puget Drive was granted "the narrow and steeps streets would not be a issue and the plat could be built to full density". The Hearing Examiner has admitted the problem is bad enough to reduce the number of houses built. The Hearing Examiner has not met the traffic requirements. There is no evidence that the reduction of houses built will reduce the impacts. There are no adequate provisions for traffic that would indicate this plat is in the Public Interest. The approval of this development would leave the residents of Renton Hill with a traffic/safety problem that is neither addressed or resolved. RCW 58.17.010 states:..The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways;. ... (complete text attached) RCW 58.17.110 states:..(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall 5 determine: (a) if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication...(complete text attached) Neither the City or the Hearing Examiner have fulfilled the requirements of the attached RCW's Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson, President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. Renton Wa. 98055 6 LETTER FROM KEITH MOBERG (see para. 8) December 11, 2000 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton I am writing concerning the proposed Bennett Homes development on Renton Hill. I have attended the Bennett Homes informational meeting, Renton Hill Homeowners Assoc. meetings and the Nov. 12, 2000 meeting in your council chambers. While some questions have been answered I have a few of my own. I reside at 627 High Ave. S. less than 2 blocks from the proposed building site. The sheer number of proposed houses and the traffic associated with them has me questioning the safety and capacity of the existing road system. During construction which has been estimated at two years plus, there will be an additional semi trucks and trailers and various heavy equipment. Though you have received many written letters and voice concerns I have my own. As a professional firefighter I respond out of a Station that has over 5,000 runs per year. Time is critical on responses. The steepness of hills like Renton Hill slow extremely heavy vehicles like fire apparatus, trucks and heavy equipment. Due to the unique parking conditions on Renton Ave. S. and Cedar Ave. S. the ability of large vehicles to pass another is impossible. If my house were on fire or a family member was in a medical emergency these delays could be and are deadly. Magnify response times considerably if Renton Fire Department, Station 11 is out of quarters. Who in the City is willing to take responsibility for these delays? My next concern is the traffic light at the bottom of Renton Hill on Mill Ave. So. Presently it allows only three vehicles to proceed on a green It light. A semi-truck and trailer equal the length of three cars. The new stop sign on Mill next to Station 11 and by old City Hall has traffic backed up to the intersection of Mill and Houser. After construction 57 new homes will be added to our hill. That is 9.55 trips per day per house according to your impact statement. 540 trips generated on top of the 200 plus households equals an increase of 25% in homes and traffic on a hill to steep for buses and described as a large cul de sac in a 1978 traffic study. My concern has been and still is the increased traffic on our small neighborhood roads. If egress for the development was East of the pipeline barrier at Phillip Arnold Park I doubt you would have the problems you have now. Bennett Homes in their first meeting with our Assoc. admitted without the ability to access Renton Hill from the West, they weren't interested in the development. Though the planned development is not popular I realize the right of the School District to sell their property. I would question how the 10 acres was zoned with no one on the hill notified of any zoning change. My solution would be to rezone to larger building lots with fewer homes and have all access come from the East while maintaining the existing road block. With these or similar requirements met I scarcely believe you would have any major complaints. In Conclusion Renton Hill is a unique neighborhood unlike any other in the City. The safety and character are prized by every resident. Change is evident but no small community should experience a 25% increase in size and population without the same percentage increase in road improvements and safety considerations. Thank you for your attention. Keith Moberg Presented to the Hearing Examiner during the hearing December 12, 2000, by Ruth Larson. Reference to RCW 58.17.110 (not new material) I would like to dispel some of the myths concerning Renton Hill. We did not oppose the River Ridge development. We welcomed it. None of the houses North of the Seattle water pipeline were on the City sewer system until the River Ridge developer applied for a permit that included a sewer line from this property to a connection on Renton Ave. So.All of the homes North of the pipeline from High Ave. So. Grant Ave. So. and on South 6th were on septic systems. All were old and extremely high maintenance. River Ridge allowed residents to hookup to the City Sewer System. That also allowed four new homes to be built and three or four more are in the planning stages to be built on the North side of the pipeline. Renton Hill did not oppose the Falcon Ridge development. The original plan of Falcon Ridge called for it's main access from the Seattle pipeline road and the removal of the gate on the pipeline. When the plan was changed to access from Royal Hills Drive, there was nothing to oppose. When Falcon Ridge requested a second gate be placed at the South end of the pipeline road to prevent late night disturbances and illegal activity on the road, Renton Hill absolutely agreed and the gate was installed. The City of Renton seems to have adopted an"oh well" attitude to the increase of 25% more traffic on Renton Hill without acknowledging the 25% loss of safety factor. The City has covered themselves by the statement of possible coal mine problems with a rider on the titles of each property. We will hold the City responsible for any condition caused by this loss of safety. RCW 58.17.110 states (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. We want to know just how Renton Hill resident's interest will be served. The City of Renton television channel 21 has a statement listing the organizational structure. The final statement of this structure states, "Renton Citizens are of course at the top of our organizational chart." We will see. RCW 58.17 .010 Purpose. The legislature finds that the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and schoolgrounds and other public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and egress; to provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed subdivisions which conform to zoning standards and local plans and policies; to adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state; and to require uniform monumenting of land subdivisions and conveyancing by accurate legal description. [1981 c 293 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 1.] NOTES: Reviser' s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrase "this act" has been changed to "this chapter. " "This act" [1969 ex. s . c 271] also consists of amendments to RCW 58 . 08 . 040 and 58 .24 . 040 and the repeal of RCW 58 . 16. 010 through 58 . 16. 110 . Severability -- 1981 c 293: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. " [1981 c 293 § 16. ] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.010.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE OF WASHUNCHUN rage i of z RCW 58 .17 .110 Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication -- Factors to be considered -- Conditions for approval -- Finding -- Release from damages . (1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners . (3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than two acres and the donor has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased individual of good character, the city, town, or county legislative body must adopt the designated name. [1995 c 32 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 52; 1989 c 330 § 3; 1974 ex.s. c 134 § 5; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 11. ] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.110.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON rage L ul NOTES: Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36. 70A. 900 and 36 . 70A. 901 . 02/01/2001 Request to add as addendum to Exhibit EXH20' Or given Exhibit status and Numbered Accordingly This request is made because Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete but weight has been given to it in the Findings and Conclusions of the Hearing Examiners Report, Dated January 25, 2001. Submitted by: Renton Hill Community Association February 7, 2001 City of Renton City - City Council Copy (If appeal is filed.) City of Renton City - City Council Copy (If appeal is filed.) February 7, 2001 Heritage Renton Hill Stopping sight distance exhibit Renton Hearing examiners EXH 20 Request for adding the following information as an addendum to EXH2O (or assigning a new exhibit number to this information). Reason for request: This exhibit was not available for review until the hearing and could not be addressed adequately without a reasonable amount of time to study it. This exhibit is incomplete, as it does not include convergence information or measurements. A great deal of weight was given to this exhibit in the determination of the feasibility of this project, we are requesting a review of exhibit EXH 20 and the admission of the enclosed documents to the project file as an addendum. EXH 20 has one vehicle heading North on Renton Ave. S. There is no need for this driver to stop, as there are no cars shown going South on Renton Ave. S. The convergence point of two cars is the critical piece of information missing in EXH 20.The sight distance problem is not great by the time you reach the crest of Renton Ave. S. (where the vehicle in this exhibit is located), it is prior to the crest for drivers coming both up and going down the hill at this location at the same time. On Saturday February 3, 2001, at 2pm, the following people measured sight distance on Renton Ave. S. Bill Collins, Keith Moberg, Bill Larson and Ruth Larson. Starting at the North property line of 531 Renton Ave. S. we marked, with chalk every 10 feet both North and South. The camera was placed on the end of a length of wood 3.50' long and with the wood placed on the roadbed; pictures were taken at 3' 6" height (the eye height used on exhibit EXH 20 plus one inch from the base of the camera to the lens). Keith Moberg held a 14' board marked in one-foot increments. Bill Larson was the photographer, Bill Collins checked location on the down hill side and Ruth Larson checked location on the up hill side. The first picture was taken 20' apart, 10 feet up the hill and 10 feet down the hill. Every 20 feet (10 up and 10 down) a picture was taken. The last picture was at taken at 300 feet apart. Bill Larson at the 3'7"height (with the camera) could not see Keith Moberg at all by 280 feet apart. Keith Moberg is 5' 9" tall. A car at the Keith Moberg location and a car at the Bill Larson location would not see each other. If each were traveling 25 miles per hour per hour, according to exhibit 18, it would take 145 feet each to stop. That is 10 feet each more than available. This is the convergence point. While appreciating the fact that Mr. Nelson is a Civil Engineer and much weight must be given to his statements, if his exhibit is not complete then it should not be considered to contain all of the information needed to make a decision on the sight distance/convergence problem on Renton Ave. So. Please place into the file the photographs presented. We are also submitting two overlays of Exhibit EXH 20. Our position is further clarified by placing an overlay at the 300-foot mark on the far right side of this exhibit, lining up the vehicle on the road line (to the right of the 3% mark). This alters the line of sight a great deal and more clearly shows the problem. You can take this further by placing the second overlay, reversed, on the road line at either the 145' mark and/or the 170' line, using a ruler to indicate line of sight from the drivers perspective . This demonstrates the problem with two vehicles converging. The overlay was not altered in any way, nor was the exhibit. Please place into the file the overlays and copy of EXH 20. Requested by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson, President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. . Renton Wa, 98055 xYti L A'ri 4 Y i�:y apt , , 11/4 i • ' . Oki t r. ~ 11 / D/i .1 F' •; .... .,.. .. ,.... ... _ _ .,,, k e + - —�.a.Y� • ` to , s) Ii . . __, r 7 M• A~ • . / 0? \ FM'$ got Y - .. . . .. , , '✓ - I 4� • e I . . . `i+ • a 0' % , Mom-''-. �: _ i� `_ IL • • go / ,. . .a A' J. — t WIN I • -.1*V°Z*V444%iii- A64 %54)4f 9 4. 00 • y_ . •�\ : •%N • , • • 4 1 # INN, . . ! • . • ., 1••• •' 1 •; ' — •". • I 0•0•‘—'4 ZIII _ _ N. i...--, t . , ........_ --.4.1.,r,- . -aloft- .. • , , .. • / 6110 •• 'a " le • 'I ... •...._ _ . .--- ... ..- ...-• •:-- - .. . . k,, ' a •. — ..."."4147-000••0•44‘•...-+a••••••2. '-• - ' : •:4.,:,,,.... .t.'• ....:', \ - :••'-' ". .. ' "...-1' '''' * * ... N.14:11.... •'.."'' '41:-..11:* 1*.0 Ay..."; .... • ..% ,.,.. I.,. .,....•,, IN,1.1.4:....ir).t.,:*17, ' 4... •'• .,I _:,../.:,,tt„aza:. . .•.. . . . .„ .1161...5%,,..... -, "„ '4+14,%Si A+t...11- 1.:•." " " •;• IN.+.'"...'"r4e. .. .•;".''. '.4. -•,"•.;,-4.1..... / ' - :7e.s•; *;...,+ ."'" , .. ...'. ' '''• ' "#*:". '+. --" la,.k,'+' .1++.7 1 + : " -. ' " .. . . . ", '' .„.''• et* • t, t„,,, , ta ,' . . ' ' *.....*.Z1.'';'+•JIC-• ..°'' •' #•(...,\S..' ' • . --a.. .. : ". -•-•••-...".'''''•'4;* - • . .. • * '''1..".,. ....',44':''. oir+0... .*1 4...."1,- ) • . -,--- ,•:• :*...-. ,t•.: 7,=.,:t.....3.:,:,-;,0• .st,04 ,...v1z.li, : . -..-. --":.,. \ ,... •-:.,ft-:, .•• - - -.. . - -,. ,'', ..::.'.:-"..-'rt :1•11.4Atti,l,n, Z.' .. ;,..z.. ,. . „._,.... . • -: :...., ..,:.'-':-.;:1,.::..,',.. ,Zlil."'''..4":!. 7—• i• • • . , .. r d 4d1" „ 4,,, .7 , g / • • • . 43111r.d. • • • /42...:10..." • -,gori% • - _ 4IE • • t. McE *. '4 0, MM. !It; /1/0T6e rlli efia ektiek,rFE OE.V 'IT 2217 Mei 0 0 1., 6 gif 5 :1 , It d2 le O ....----\_. e - .\\. yr , � �'• • .. 1 lit r / ii ' 24dI .1 l • - lin V - �` 1 • . V M i ..R .,+ r ice�yy.""" '� .""" I — w , e A , Og i.i gitA °79 ‘- , • S. 111101' _ • . .• . • ' , .. - • . . .. • • ' ' . • • • • . .• , .• - - .--,4: . --. ..-. ry•-..,••- '':-.., -.•-4- ... •.' • . . \ %IN ..:4 4 -s .47 .4 i. •".,• - •, -. • t'4..t. •• ,"- • , . .... .. •-,. . .•••• ...- . • . • - 1.- 4."" -• _ .4 „....-..... • s4 — . r - .. .. .. ... . el .- .. •1 .--,41- . .. . . . ..... . • . , ii• ,, 1,•,, . • I/ . • - ... \--/ 0( • '. . __ 1 •,. t :..i. 'AI 's • .4J1 Please note: the car is no longer seen at 220' only allows 110' for each Vehicle, stopping distance. From EXH 18; stopping Sight Distance for 25 mph Computed (ft) 138.5-146.5, Rounded for design(ft) 150-150. From AASHTO-Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. • • C.11 C.) O S'Z6Z N tl "; C 4, II 2 to 0 ® T a. £"06Z I) s < F' (' c.D � I W® � 1 oil Lu ll I 11 IMEMNII 11I CI) ^1 1 I I �'88z W O i �,�, 1 zW Q Cb I 10 1 Q 1I W 0 It y It O � � o II W 0 • s's8z co W nos (A 1-0 W •� ULO m0 >Lu O O II a O II I 0 6'08Z I W 1 �, O 1l II t-zi Li Zct `1 .• I 1 - HERITAGE RENTON HILL STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT SEC. 20, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., W.M. N DWN. BY: DATE: JOB NO. i o 4030 Lake Washington P ETERSON Blvd. N.E.,Suite 200 BMD 12/6/00 HERM-0025 W CONSULTING Kirkland, WA 98033 4 Tel(425) 827-5874 CHKD. BY: SCALE: SHEET z ENGINEERS Fax(425) 822-7216 „Jo . JWN VAR/ES 1 OF 1 wa Please remove EXH 20 and two overlays from the envelope. Place one overlay on EXH 20 with the vehicle placed beneath the bold 300 at the right of the exhibit, lining up the broken line (that indicates the road level) to the right of the —3%. Using a ruler at the eye level of the vehicle, note the site line. Place the second overlay (reversed so the vehicle is going up hill) at the 145' mark, again lining up the broken line. Check the site line with a ruler. This visual is more representative of the convergent area sight distance problem. • • • N OTES RECEIPT J DATE a CI-- W106a NO. 0 9 9 3 ) 1 . cc U • RECEIVED FROM J O4-04- t. /ale l .A77/1.,L�t�'/4i,P-... ,1 7. 7/V �/� �^ / j ai� ADDRESS 1 [ . Y LLI U i C FOR � �f1n , /I�f r� / - f -oS.q. M/ih de-Id/9 1 0 -�= ACCOUHT';a.. : ,.' ,.:�.. ... .' . .':HOW,PAID: .I: M .: „. QAMT.OF , • - U O U O ACCOUNT CASH LL t1S PAID CHECK ' ry 1, t' / _ BA uNCE ORDER BY ,MONEY ,24"1/f.0 6 4. ,zia_ J,-- . '�a, I ` ©1998 REDIFORM®8L802 • )' • f.15.t:U,nRJi�.StivSiAd�ab:N!['ei- Sl:'tf1w.'iY.t.J�:kt%.xii•.l�l•',r�-.:v:...; - - • •-.-•• xw.,xxnMn mn . • — ---- mrtanvm, RENTON HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 98-7087/3251 3 . 014071870D • PH. 425-255-0290 714 HIGH AVE S / —F-0/ • RENTON, WA 98055 DATE �" : s / . / / ���777 . PAY TO THE �I / $,7 ,O� iORDER 01 / 1. 1A-40 j, DOLLARS 8 =:^a.d 1 1 I FIRST FIRST SAV /GS BANK SAVINGS I of Renton MAIN OFFICE BANK 201 Wells Avenue So.,Renton,Washington 98055 (425)/) 255-4400 /�/}/-,/] (425)277-8610 MEMO l__bu%` /— ''/Y �Z----- — — — • -- ----N ,I: 3 25 L 70E1 7 71: 0 L11140 7 La ?o II' L00 3 / `� CITY CLERK DIVISION f Send Copies To: ` 1 i5/O� Date: CITY ATTORNEY 11 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS / EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP. 4.4...41, (zi b FINANCE/INFO SERVICES `� , FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION / HEARING EXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMT HUMAN SERVICES LIBRARIES MAYOR/EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL COURT PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE COMFIER NEWSPAPER X PARTIES OF RECORD (.50 • Planning/Building/Public Work u ADMINISTRATION �,/0� � AIRPORT /G ;2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES l� 1 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES y/3144,""' r UTILITIES&TECH SERVICES " 0 le �A r APPEAL c� CIT` DF RENTON { Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor: . • Fred J.Kaufman February 12,2001 • Ruth Larson,President . . Renton Hill Community Association 714 High Avenue S Renton, WA.98055 RE: Request for Reconsideration,Renton Heritage Hill • Appeal•and Preliminary Plat Hearings LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF Dear Ms:Larson: This office received a request for reconsideration regarding this matter and the response follows.. First,this office does not discount that there will bp impacts on the,community,both-short-lived : impacts and long-term impacts. The,short-lived(which,itself is a;relative term).impacts will be. the concrete impacts of development,including construction traffic:and noise. The long-term impacts will be increased traffic and noise from;new residents:: That does not mean that.those impacts will create an overall untoward,impact as required for a.SEPA determination of ... significance. . This office will generally address the concerns•in the manner used by the request. Page 8,#21: The issue was4he proposed reduction in hauling truck`trips due to a change in grading.:plans: The applicant proposed to more closely balance the-cut and fill. The change in... grading plans is now considered;part:of"the application and cannot be:altered without submitting a new application. The party that ultimately develops the site is not relevant to the permit as reviewed and altered. The ultimate developer would be bound.bythe:application as it was reviewed and approved. Stafford Crest as well as a number of large apartment complexes have all resulted in construction traffic similar to if not larger than the construction traffic anticipated. It is not so significant as to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. ' Page 8,422: The overall impacts of-additional traffic including LOS were considered by the documents and bolstered by the-testimony: There will be additional traffic,and there will be a fraction of a second delay at the signal-controlled intersection which will not be noticeable.':The • : LOS for the various intersections,which is currently excellent,-will not be changed other_than that. fractional delay:. There,is no question that the hill and its-various routes are quite steep,but the entire record demonstrates that traffic can negotiate it satisfactorily.: Page 9,#24:"Again;the record demonstrates that the hill is°now negotiated by.currentresiderit and can be.similarly negotiated by new residents." Staff supported the applicant's studies that the sight distance is acceptable.. The record is closed. The appellant had the burden at the hearing'or hearings and the information submitted is not timely at.this point • . - • 19O1 OO1 - 1055 South Grady`Way Renton, Washington 98055 '(425).,430-6515:,.` C. This paper.ccntains 51:)%.recycled material,20%`post consumer Ruth Larson Page 2 Page 10, #34: The availability of dial-up service is not crucial to whether or not the subject proposal has more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. Page 10, #38:As noted in the determination,roadway maintenance is determined on need, and if the roadway deteriorates,it will be scheduled for repair whatever the surface or subsurface • conditions. Page 12,#9: Sight distance was discussed above. Alone or coupled with,the other issues presented.on appeal did not present evidence necessary to overcome the burden on the appellants • in this decision. • Pages 17 and 22 both reflect the minutes and the summarize d testimony. This office will not comment on testimony. Page 24, #18: The construction of the-overpasses means that access to the hill is not completely blocked by passing railroad trains as-it had been in the past-It may be inconvenient to reach or, leave the hill,but no more so than for other residents of South:Renton when trains run through town. Page 24, #25: The City has asset of adopted policies on how traffic is to be evaluated. Those • policies were utilized,and there is capacity"to handle the:traffic. As.a matter of policy review, this office attempted to reduce traffic impacts:to_some extent by reducing the total number of lots. This recommendation to.thew Council:went beyond mere technical issues and dealt with the more personal impacts of the traffic on those residents along the commute route. This recommendation also went against stated City Council policy:that density reduction by the Hearing Examiner was not generally appropriate."It seemed that in these circumstances,the balancing of impacts ' demanded a reduction even if that reduction was modest Page 25, #26: There will be more traffic.-That is cleat',stated: The way LOS is calculated shows that there is capacity for more•cars,and'.that LOS will not Add one new home to an existing block and one neighbor will notice the a change: That, again, is not refuted. There is no doubt that residents will notice more"traffic.There will be even less traffic with the reduction of the plat to 50 homes from the proposed 57 homes: The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and did not indicate any new concerns over serving the existing community. Page 25,.#28: Many areas of the City have less than standard roads,both in terms of width and in terms of grade. Residents on West Hill above the airport have similar roads,and those in Windor Hills and those near Group Health have steep grades. Residents'living along Lake Washington. have rail blocked:access and one lane roads. The City is either blessed or cursed by interesting terrain features: The subject site was clearly reclassified to R-8.to allow'up to eight dwelling units per acre. That density was reduced somewhat by the recommendation to the City Council to allow.a 50 lot plat. If.the City Council chooses, it May modify its adopted policies.and/or change the Zoning: This office has worked within the laws that govern this proposed development at this: - time. Ruth Larson Page 3 In conclusion,nothing short of leveling the`hill will resolve the purported problems. But the record does not show that developing the subject site will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the overall environment. The technical analysis as well as the experience gained by reviewing the accident history and habits of Renton Hill residents demonstrates that this development can be accommodated,although it will affect,but not adversely(as used in SEPA) affect,the current residents who live on Renton Hill: As this office noted at-the public hearing, there is no doubt that if some future development were proposed;these new residents will be right • alongside the current residents attempting to preserve the quality of life esteemed by those now living on Renton Hill...That does not mean that new development does not fit or that it cannot be accommodated. The record reflects that it can be accommodated. In closing,there is no reason to alter or reverse either the original decision-on the'SEPA appeal or' the Recommendation to the City Council to approve the plat. • Since this office is aware that an appeal;has:already been.f ledwith the City Council and since this letter did not change the original decision;.there is no reason to extend the appeal period. If this office can provide any:additional assistance,please:feel,free to write. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc:. Mayor Jesse Tanner s Jay Covington,Chief Administrative'Officer ;; . Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts,Development Services • Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services City.Clerk Parties of Record CITY OF RENTON i Boa g,,yi FEB 0 8 200 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Numbers: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF Dated January 25, 2001 Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Date: February 7, 2001 February 7, 2001 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Request for Reconsideration File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 8, #21: "The original plans called for a substantial grade and fill effort...the number of truck trips would probably be reduced to approximately 750 trips. The original estimate would have generated approximately 3,700 trips." The applicant is not going to build or develop this property. This probable reduction of truck trips is not included as a recommendation, and probable is not binding to whoever does develop and build. (Probable: "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur...page 11; 4.c.) The number of trips generated by the construction itself (including but not limited to Cement trucks, Lumber trucks, construction workers daily trips, Sheet rock, roofing, and etc) are not addressed. Page 8, #22: "The fact is, transportation impact analysis including LOS information and sight distance information shows that the existing road system can handle the additional traffic including the additional approximately 50 to 60 vehicle trips that would be generated during the peak hours." The transportation impact analysis did not include sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So., the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include 1 factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety"... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are not included regarding the problem sight area. Page 9, #24: The technical analysis would appear to show that at normal driving sitting position, the view is not significantly impaired. This statement leads to the request to add an addendum to EXH2O, including photographs. This technical analysis is not complete and therefore not accurate. Page 10, #34: While there is no public bus route serving the hill, residents can apparently use a dial-up service for vans. This statement is in error. "Dial-up service is restricted to the disabled and in some circumstances qualified seniors. The senior center will pick-up seniors, twice per week for lunch and to shop at two designated stores. Page 10, #38: "Renton Avenue was checked and it is four inches of asphalt over crushed rock." John Giuliani (see page 18) stated that when Renton Ave was repaved, he personally observed that all the asphalt was removed down to the dirt. New asphalt was placed directly on top of the dirt with no gravel base underneath to anchor it. When the City of Renton checked Renton Ave So, they drilled three holes and found crushed rock. Unfortunately they did not ask Mr. Giuiani where he watched the asphalt placed without any foundation. The sample holes were not in the area Mr. Giuiani observed. It would have taken one phone call to establish the location of the problem. The City's transportation people chose not to call therefore did not locate the problem area. Page 12, #9: The various analyses demonstrate that the LOS will not be substantially changed. The analyses also demonstrate that while there are 2 some constraints due to the steepness of the hill and the narrowness of the roadway, but that the additional traffic can be safely accommodated As with page 8, #22...The transportation impact analysis did not study sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So, the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety" ... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are certainly not included regarding the sight distance area. Page 17, John Nelson: Mr. Nelson stated that as a result of his analysis and actually driving the roads in question, he did not think there is any significant problem with sight distances on the roads in Renton Hill. Mr. Nelson did not include the convergence of traffic in his analysis. His analysis concerned one car. Many Residents of Renton Hill testified to the problems with sight distance on Renton Hill. Surely the testimony of those who deal with the convergence zone on a daily basis should carry more weight than someone who "actually drove the roads in question" a few times and then did analysis on a single vehicle. Please refer to the requested addendum to Exhibit 20. Page 22, Mr. Nelson: ...graphical measurements were made on 7th Avenue from the project site all the way down to Renton Avenue S and Cedar to the bottom of the hill. These were graphical measurements made on the computer. On-the-ground fieldwork was done all the way up Renton Avenue S. The Renton Hill Community Association has requested (no less than twice) that a road engineer make an on site physical determination of 3 grade percent be done at the 500 block of Renton Ave. S. A determination of grade percent using a topographic map does not provide the accuracy required for an exhibit that is given weight in an Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearing. The on-the-ground fieldwork was done only to provide measurement information and line of sight for a single vehicle. Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete. Findings. Page 24, #18: Reconstruction and realignment of I-405 during the last decade provided a second crossing of I-405, and both crossings were elevated and therefore removed the railroad crossing. This statement is in error. The realignment of I-405 did not provide an elevated crossing over the Railroad crossing on Mill Ave. S. The elevation only applies to the crossing of I-405. Daily the Spirit of Washington Dinner train passes thru the Mill Ave. S./Houser Way area at the foot of Renton Hill and blocks access to the Hill (twice for lunch and twice for dinner). Rail deliveries to The Boeing Company, Paccar, and Kenworth are all made on this Railroad track. Page 24-25, #25: Staff noted that the City anticipated an increase in overall traffic of approximately 50 percent, and that the 25 percent increase was reasonable. If the City of Renton Staff is anticipating and increase of 50 % in overall traffic — NO plat or permit should be approved until the Staff makes sure Cities roads are adequate to handle the increase. There should be some accountability to the tax paying residents who are forced to "adjust" to the amount of traffic generated by new housing and those who pass thru the City to get to the County. Inadequate City streets should have been considered at the same time the growth management act was enacted. That the Cities and the Counties did not figure this out at that time doesn't necessarily mean the problem should not be addressed now. Perhaps a building moratorium would give local governments time to resolve this problem. Page 25, #26: The traffic analysis shows that the major intersections serving this site, Main Avenue S and S 4th Street, Houser Way and Mill, Cedar and S3rd and Renton Avenue and S 7th will suffer no degradation in LOS. 4 In view of the fact that #18 on page 24 is in error and that the questions raised in a December 11, 2000 letter written by Keith Moberg ( see paragraph 8) to the Hearing Examiner have not been addressed, this item should be reviewed. Copy of letter attached. Page 25, #28: Staff did suggest that new residents would have to adjust to the conditions of access just as other residents on the hill have adjusted in the past, including other new residents. Adjustment to a problem does not make the problem go away. CONCLUSIONS: In reading the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner in the Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings it becomes clear that the safety issues have not been resolved. Item 14 admits that if access to this project from Puget Drive was granted "the narrow and steeps streets would not be a issue and the plat could be built to full density". The Hearing Examiner has admitted the problem is bad enough to reduce the number of houses built. The Hearing Examiner has not met the traffic requirements. There is no evidence that the reduction of houses built will reduce the impacts. There are no adequate provisions for traffic that would indicate this plat is in the Public Interest. The approval of this development would leave the residents of Renton Hill with a traffic/safety problem that is neither addressed or resolved. RCW 58.17.010 states:..The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; ... (complete text attached) RCW 58.17.110 states:..(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall 5 determine: (a) if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication...(complete text attached) Neither the City or the Hearing Examiner have fulfilled the requirements of the attached RCW's Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson, President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. Renton Wa. 98055 6 • LETTER FROM KEITH MOBERG (see para. 8) December 11, 2000 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton I am writing concerning the proposed Bennett Homes development on Renton Hill. I have attended the Bennett Homes informational meeting, Renton Hill Homeowners Assoc. meetings and the Nov. 12, 2000 meeting in your council chambers. While some questions have been answered I have a few of my own. I reside at 627 High Ave. S. less than 2 blocks from the proposed building site. The sheer number of proposed houses and the traffic associated with them has me questioning the safety and capacity of the existing road system. During construction which has been estimated at two years plus, there will be an additional semi trucks and trailers and various heavy equipment. Though you have received many written letters and voice concerns I have my own. As a professional firefighter I respond out of a Station that has over 5,000 runs per year. Time is critical on responses. The steepness of hills like Renton Hill slow extremely heavy vehicles like fire apparatus, trucks and heavy equipment. Due to the unique parking conditions on Renton Ave. S. and Cedar Ave. S. the ability of large vehicles to pass another is impossible. If my house were on fire or a family member was in a medical emergency these delays could be and are deadly. Magnify response times considerably if Renton Fire Department, Station 11 is out of quarters. Who in the City is willing to take responsibility for these delays? My next concern is the traffic light at the bottom of Renton Hill on Mill Ave. So. Presently it allows only three vehicles to proceed on a green .. fi light. A semi-truck and trailer equal the length of three cars. The new stop sign on Mill next to Station 11 and by old City Hall has traffic backed up to the intersection of Mill and Houser. After construction 57 new homes will be added to our hill. That is 9.55 trips per day per house according to your impact statement. 540 trips generated on top of the 200 plus households equals an increase of 25% in homes and traffic on a hill to steep for buses and described as a large cul de sac in a 1978 traffic study. My concern has been and still is the increased traffic on our small neighborhood roads. If egress for the development was East of the pipeline barrier at Phillip.Arnold Park I doubt you would have the problems you have. now. Bennett Homes in their first meeting with our Assoc. admitted without the ability to access Renton Hill from the West, they weren't interested in the development. Though the planned development is not popular I realize the right of the School District to sell their property. I would question how the 10 acres was zoned with no one on the hill notified of any zoning change. My solution would be to rezone to larger building lots with fewer homes and have all access come from the East while maintaining the existing road block. With these or similar requirements met I scarcely believe you would have any major complaints. In conclusion Renton Hill is a unique neighborhood unlike any other in the City. The safety and character are prized by every resident. Change is evident but no small community should experience a 25% increase in size and population without the same percentage increase in road improvements and safety considerations. Thank you for your attention. Keith Moberg Presented to the Hearing Examiner during the hearing December 12, 2000, by Ruth Larson. Reference to RCW 58.17.110 (not new material) I would like to dispel some of the myths concerning Renton Hill. We did not oppose the River Ridge development. We welcomed it. None of the houses North of the Seattle water pipeline were on the City sewer system until the River Ridge developer applied for a permit that included a sewer line from this property to a connection on Renton Ave. So.All of the homes North of the pipeline from High Ave. So. Grant Ave. So. and on South 6th were on septic systems. All were old and extremely high maintenance. River • Ridge allowed residents to hookup to the City Sewer System. That also allowed four new homes to be built and three or four more are in the planning stages to be built on the North side of the pipeline. Renton Hill did not oppose the Falcon Ridge development. The original plan of Falcon Ridge called for it's main access from the Seattle pipeline road and the removal of the gate on the pipeline. When the plan was changed to access from Royal Hills Drive, there was nothing to oppose. When Falcon Ridge requested a second gate be placed at the South end of the pipeline road to prevent late night disturbances and illegal activity on the road, Renton Hill absolutely agreed and the gate was installed. The City of Renton seems to have adopted an"oh well" attitude to the increase of 25% more traffic on Renton Hill without acknowledging the 25% loss of safety factor. The City has covered themselves by the statement of possible coal mine problems with a rider on the titles of each property. We will hold the City responsible for any condition caused by this loss of safety. RCW 58.17.110 states (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. We want to know just how Renton Hill resident's interest will be served. The City of Renton television channel 21 has a statement listing the organizational structure. The final statement of this structure states, "Renton Citizens are of course at the top of our organizational chart." We will see. . REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON rage 1 of 1 RCW 58.17.010 Purpose. The legislature finds that the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe . and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and schoolgrounds and other public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and egress; to provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed subdivisions which conform to zoning standards and local plans and policies; to adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state; and to require uniform monumenting of land subdivisions and conveyancing by accurate legal description. [1981 c 293 § 1; 1969 ex. 's. c 271 § 1.] NOTES: Reviser' s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrase "this act" has been changed to "this chapter. " "This act" [1969 ex. s : c 271] also consists of amendments to RCW 58 . 08 . 040 and 58 .24 . 040 and the repeal of RCW 58 . 16. 010 through 58 . 16. 110 . Severability -- 1981 c 293: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of ,the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. " [1981 c 293 § 16. ] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.010.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE Ur WASH1NW ON ?age 1 of 2 RCW 58.17.110 Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication -- Factors to be considered -- Conditions for approval -- Finding -- Release from damages. (1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners . (3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than two acres and the donor has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased individual of good character, the city, town, or county legislative body must adopt the designated name. [1995 c 32 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 52; 1989 c 330 § 3; 1974 ex.s. c 134 § 5; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 11.] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.110.ht 02/06/2001 • REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 2 of 2 NOTES: Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36. 70A. 900 and 36.70A. 901 . 02/01/2001 ti 1. l- r i3OTES g R E C E 1 Pl DATE f/3 r°/'a �9. NPJ. ^��9 6 RECEIVED FROM Vila- ' ADDRESS 1 co�y�t s ugh z-- �`^ $ 90.60 FOR e.a, �. -41 slhAV41,q.P &iruttin Mu flea Frye > ` - - --ACCOUNT .: 'A'dr:Ar'>.«:. a?-HOWiPAID'gV:e tX; AMT.OF a ACCOUNT CASH AMT. CHECK PAID a°� �/� _ E BALANCE MONEY By / h . ..61.A/tatti„fjJ'1.41 DUE ORDER O ©1998 REDIFORMO 8L802 IMPORTANT MESS' 4GE • FOR gear?� fiaVYlliler - DATE ) , 700I TIME i •�JZ� A.I . . HILE YOU WERE OUT M ( ..MM011 OF - PHONE NO. 1/26 --966 — o 0 TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN. . WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT - I I RETURNED YOUR CAL MESSAGE 1 :I. 4 V tt se-k5 . d .-e- N I A.PA -i-,l of n it! 5. -Tr; i' keA iQ/Q ll"i-i- wi tt , SIGNED rp V- CAyieS° 506VPX4 CASCADE P3-R 2334 Paper contains 50%recycled fibers, of which 20%is post-consumer waste. Y 1^' AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) r 7-77 t,iGaj.aL being first duly sworn,upon oath, deposes and states: That on the ,5 day of , 1)/, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sea nvelope(s) cofithining a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: \ - SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this- day of 2001. fwe0A4 . cms s a ; o Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing a ,therein. • ONNVZ�;= Application, Petition, or Case No.: Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. . . • . . _ , ... 0 1 _ { ,_ i • • i. • IB, • • r t HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT i�, ' January 25 ,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER • CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Ruth Larson Appeal of ERC's Determination re Heritage Renton Hill File No.: LUA00-149,AAD LOCATION: Renton Hill, southeast of intersection of Beacon Way S with SE 7th Ct,Jones Ave S,and South 7th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivide an approximately 450,846 square feet(10.35 acre) property into 57 lots suitable for detached, single family homes SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA determination PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 14,2000 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,November 14,2000,at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Yellow land use file, LUA00- the Examiner's letter setting the hearing date,a map, 053,PP,ECF,containing the original application,proof photographs,and other documentation pertinent to the of posting,proof of publication and other appeal. documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.4: Photo of Renton Ave S Exhibit No. 5: Photo of telephone pole 6" from curb Exhibit No.6: Photo of telephone pole 12-1/2" from curb Exhibit No.7: Photo of curb and gutters Exhibit No.8: Photo of garbage truck on street Exhibit No.9: Photo of garbage truck on street Exhibit No. 10: Photo of dip in street Exhibit No. 11: Photo of fire hydrant Exhibit No. 12: Ruth Larson's testimony Exhibit No. 13: Aerial photo from City Archives Exhibit No. 14: Plat map Exhibit No. 15: Phase I Environmental Site Exhibit No. 16: Jennifer Steig letter to Bennett Assessment Development • Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 2 Parties present: Appellant: Ruth Larson Renton Hill Community Association 714 High Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Representing applicant: Ann M. Gygi,Attorney Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Applicant: Ryan Fike Bennett Development 9 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100-A Bellevue, WA 98005 Representing City of Renton: Zanetta Fontes,City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Ms.Larson, appellant herein, reviewed each item contained in her written appeal of the ERC's Staff Report dated October 17,2000, and explained the reasons for her objections in each case. Particular emphasis was given to Renton Avenue South. Ms. Larson used photos to show the close proximity of telephone poles to the curbs,the narrowness of the street,the dips in the street and the tendency of garbage trucks to drive toward the center of the street. She explained her concerns regarding safety issues when large trucks are using the street considering the narrowness of the street,the steep grade, and the limited sight distances. Becky Lamke, 415 Cedar Ave S,Renton, WA 98055 expressed concern that the number of trips per day per single family household has been underestimated,based on informal surveys of her neighbors. Ms.Lamke questioned exactly what the landscaping would consist of in the 15-foot buffer along the north property boundary. She concluded by stating that the construction vehicles should be required to come onto the site off of Puget Drive. It is not considered safe for busses to come up the hill, so it should not be safe for large trucks to do so. Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 gave an overview of the nature of the project, its current status, and its progress through the ERC. Regarding the reason for the setbacks on Lot#35,Ms. Higgins stated the geotechnical engineer's report commented that the slopes at the rear of this lot are excessive. They recommended that the setback at the rear of Lot#35 be increased from Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 3 20 to 25 feet in order to further to protect the slope. Using a photograph from the City Archives, she clarified why an exemption to the requirement in the Critical Areas Ordinance that slopes above a certain grade be protected was granted to the project. Ms. Higgins also addressed the issues of groundwater,responsibility for landscaping,regulation of fences, and parks constructed on the property. Ms. Higgins discussed the issue of Metro service on Renton Hill. She also explained the State of Washington Growth Management Act requirements and how the City is required to plan for housing. The City Council has committed to provide as much single family housing as possible and not meet their target with apartments. Regarding the requirement that a note be placed on the face of the plat about former mining activities,Ms. Higgins stated this is the City's way of insuring that a property owner is made aware of a potentially hazardous situation. Mining activity took place throughout the city, and there are very rudimentary maps of where these mine shafts might be.The note on the plat alerts the potential home owner to seek the consultation of a structural engineer and choose the construction method most appropriate for the site. The appeal hearing was adjourned at 12:30 pm.,to be continued on Thursday,November 16 at 9:00 a.m. ******************************** The continued appeal hearing opened on Thursday,November 16 at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 explained her role regarding Land Use Applications and how these applications are reviewed by her office. Ms.Kittrick stated that the Street Maintenance Plan requires that all arterials be evaluated annually and all other streets,which would include Renton Avenue S, be evaluated every two years. Ms. Kittrick explained traffic mitigation fees and how they are reviewed and collected,resources available for street repair, and hauling times as allowed by code. Ms.Kittrick reviewed intersection distances,how they are measured, and under what circumstances intersections should be 110 feet apart vs. 150 feet apart. She also discussed the transportation study provided by the applicant, including levels of service at S 7th Ct and access to Renton Hill overall. Regarding the foundation of Renton Avenue S.,Ms. Kittrick stated that recent borings show four inches of asphalt over crushed rock. On cross examination,Ms. Kittrick responded to questions raised by Ms.Larson in her appeal letter. Ann M. Gygi, attorney representing applicant, Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson, 1221 Second Ave,Seattle,WA 98101-2925 opened by reiterating that in a SEPA appeal it is appellant's burden to establish that the SEPA determination is clearly erroneous. This is a plat application that is based on an adopted comprehensive plan and zoning that slated this property for development at an urban scale. This parcel is among those that the City of Renton legislated to accommodate a certain amount of urban growth under the Growth Management Act. • The general impacts associated with the conversion are impacts of the legislative decision. The specific and unique impacts of the plat proposal are what should be the subject of the SEPA consideration at this stage. Mark McGinnis, Geotech Consultants, 13256 NE 20th St.#16,Bellevue, WA 98005 reviewed his education, training and experience as a geotechnical engineer. He summarized what is contained in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by his firm regarding coal mines under the site, including risk of excessive settlement, localized subsidence, and mine gas emissions.Mr. McGinnis discussed the mitigation measures recommended in the Geotechnical Report to address the two worked coal mine seams under the property. He stated that it is his professional opinion that the recommended measures will adequately mitigate Heritage Renton Hill - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings ' File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 4 any potential risks associated with the two worked coal seams. Mr. McGinnis described the steep slope associated with Lot#35 in the northeast corner of the site. His firm investigated the slope, looked for slope problems, and did a test pit for exploration in the area to assess soil conditions near the top of the slope. Based on these observations, a 25 foot building setback from the crest of the slope is recommended. In addition to the 25 foot setback, it is recommended that there be no clearing and grading within 10 feet of the top of slope. Larry Hobbs,Transportation Planning and Engineering,Inc.,2223 112th Ave NE, Suite 101, Bellevue,WA 98004 reviewed his background, education and training as a traffic engineer. Mr.Hobbs stated that safety issues were considered as part of the traffic study that was prepared for the project. The city provided the last three years worth of accident data in the area, and it was found that there were no accidents recorded on Renton Hill itself for this period of time. In checking the data for the last five years, it was found that there were three traffic accidents throughout all of Renton Hill. Two of these accidents involved one vehicle backing into another, and the third was a vehicle striking a parked vehicle. There were no injuries or fatalities in any of the reported accidents. The record of reported traffic incidents is one of the main indicators of safety on a street system. Mr. Hobbs stated that it is his opinion that there will not be any increase in traffic accidents in the Renton Hill area as a result of the proposed development. Residents of the area would most likely be aware of anything that may be deficient and would drive accordingly to compensate for that. New residents moving into the area would rapidly gain familiarity with the street system. Jennifer Steig, Peterson Consulting Engineers,4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 200,Kirkland, WA 98033 gave a summary of her training,education and experience as a civil engineer. Ms. Steig described the conceptual grading plan her firm prepared for the site. Once grades are set, computer programs to come up with cut and fill volume. Based on the conceptual grading plan,there would be approximately 55,000 cubic yards of cut material and I9,000 cubic yards of fill. The applicant requested that we develop a plan with a closer balance so that all the cut and fill would be used on the site--there would not be any material hauled off the site as a result of grading. The conceptual plan was sent to a company used industry wide that has a computer program which can look at the site as it is graded in the conceptual plan and raise or lower the site in small increments to determine when a balance is reached. This information is used to develop a final grading plan for construction. In doing this, it was found that if the site is raised one foot from the conceptual grading plan,there would be a balance of the cut and fill material on the site. Based on further geotechnical studies, if the unsuitable fill were screened on site,the amount of fill that would need to be hauled off site could be reduced by approximately half. Ms. Steig discussed the number of truck trips that would be required to haul fill off the property based on the number of cubic yards of fill remaining. She explained under what conditions material must be worked so that it will be suitable for use in construction. In closing,Ms.Larson discussed the issues of preservation of vegetation and wildlife, compatibility of the new homes with the neighborhood,and the two crested vertical curves on Renton Ave S that do not meet city, county or state requirements for vertical curve design. Ms.Fontes, in closing,addressed issues raised by the appellant in the course of the hearing and discussed what the evidence has shown and what the process has been in each instance. Ms.Fontes reiterated that despite all the questions raised by the appellant, she has not shown evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts in any of these instances. Therefore,the decision made by the ERC must stand. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 5 Ms. Larson responded that every question she asked was stated in the ERC's report. She responded to the questions because she felt there was clarification needed. Some of the issues have been clarified, others have not. In closing, Ms. Gygi stated that the applicant concurs with the City's closing arguments. She reviewed some of • the issues raised by the appellant. Ms. Gygi summarized by stating that any project will alter the surrounding area. It is unrealistic to expect that there would be no effect from development. The law does not require that all adverse impacts be eliminated. If it did,no change in land use would ever be possible. Ms. Gygi reiterated that the burden is upon the appellant to prove adverse environmental impacts,which has not been done in this case. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 11:30 a.m. SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS,CONCLUSION&DECISION FINDINGS: 1. The appellant,The Renton Hill Community Association, represented by Ruth Larson,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M) issued for a proposed Preliminary Plat that would divide approximately 10.35 acres of R-8 (Residential: 8 units per acre)zoned property into 57 lots. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. . In processing the preliminary plat application the City subjected the application to is ordinary SEPA review process. The City,in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 3. The subject site is located near the intersection of Beacon Way SE, S 7th Court and S 7th Street. The property is located immediately across from Philip Arnold Park. 4. The subject site a triangular parcel approximately 1.114 feet by 818 feet by 829 feet. • 5. The subject site is approximately 10.35 acres or 450,846 square feet in area. 6. The subject site has rolling and descending terrain with some steeper slopes that were determined to be manmade as part of past mining or quarrying activity. An exemption from steep slope regulations was issued administratively since the steeper slopes are not natural. 7. The ERC imposed five conditions related to erosion control,three conditions imposing mitigation fees for fire,parks and roads,three conditions related to geotechnical issues for building construction/foundation work, subsidence notice due to potential coal mines and setbacks from steep slopes,one condition dealing with the potential discovery of hazardous materials, one dealing with traffic control for construction vehicles and finally, a condition for access across the Seattle Pipeline for emergency, secondary access. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 6 8. During the course of the public hearing staff noted that the gross vehicle weight of 26,000 was not intended to vary from that posted on the road signs and should have matched that posted along the road. 9. The appellants objected to the determination. The appellants objected to or raised concerns about: a. Modification of street standards to allow narrower roads in the plat. b. Protection for abutting Falcon Ridge and River Ridge properties. c. Weight limit on Renton Avenue differing from posted standard (that was an error not intended to vary from posted limits). d. Width and emergency access relating to the Pipeline road. e. The steepness and width of Renton Avenue South. f. Exception to Critical Areas Ordinance that permitted grading on previously disturbed slopes. g. The amount of grading and number of heavy truck trips were not fully evaluated for impacts on the community. (the applicant altered the plans to balance the cut and fill and substantially reduce material movements) h. Impacts on River Ridge. i. Air quality impacts of vegetation removal. j. The alteration of the base elevation and its impacts on water. k. The removal of 92%of the trees and retention of 32 trees, if possible. 1. The maintenance of installed landscaping strips and islands. m. Impacts on the deer population that frequents the subject site. n. The manner in which the rezone was adopted. o. The character of the homes. p. The consistency of fencing. q. The impacts of new light on the community. r. The impact of internal pocket parks. s. The impact on the Renton Hill community by this plat. Herifage Renton Hill - ' ' Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 7 t. Traffic impacts of new residents and construction vehicles on the existing road surfaces and the community. u. The use of mitigation funding. v. The development does not follow the policies of the City of Renton. 10. The subject site is located near the northeast corner of Renton Hill just where it begins its drop down to Maple Valley and the Cedar River. 11. The majority of property in the vicinity of the subject site is zoned R-8 (Residential; 8 dwelling units per acre). It has been developed with single family homes. The slopes north of and below the subject site are Resource Conservation. 12. Immediately north of the subject site is the River Ridge development that contains 11 lots. The proposed development would share an access roadway that now serves only River Ridge. East of the subject site is Falcon Ridge,and it contains 80 lots. Falcon Ridge is accessed from the east by a private roadway. 13. The subject site is covered by what is probably second or third growth trees and shrubs. As noted,the site has been disturbed by some form of extraction or quarrying in the past. 14. The applicant did an historical survey of the subject site using aerial photographs as well reviewing the permit history of the site. There also were reviews of the mining data for the subject site and vicinity. There were also borings to determine the nature of the soils and to expose potential dumping of hazardous or other materials. The US Geological Survey maps for the area show a mine symbol, although it does not specify the type of mine but it appears it was used as a gravel quarry. 15. An evaluation was made of potential mine hazards. Both the more shallow and deeper mines are located 200 feet to 600 feet deep. It is anticipated that most linear shafts would have subsided over time. Any collapse events in "horizontal"mines would be distributed over those 200 to 600 feet, causing little surface subsidence. The greater potential for dangerous collapses are old airshafts or vertical access shafts. Some of these were filled with jumbled lumber or other debris till it"caught" on the sides of the shaft and then filled. The "caught"materials can decay over time and lead to collapses. In most cases these latter actions cannot be predicted. The geotechnical information and studies have instructions on dealing with these if they are discovered during construction. In addition,there are governmental agencies that deal with such openings,although obviously,an opening occurring can still take parties by surprise. The geotechnical report also has construction methods to make sure homes constructed in this development follow certain prescribed foundation techniques. 16. The applicant and City emphasized stability in dealing with lots near the edge of slope areas. The only lot affected by steeper slopes is Lot 35 in the northeast corner of the subject site. Lot 35 will have a 25 foot setback for building and a 10 foot setback buffer that will remain undisturbed. Heritage Renton Hill -- Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings ' File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 8 17. The Geotechnical information shows that areas that have 15%to 30%slopes are limited and most of the terrain is moderate and the underlying soils are suitable for construction. The ERC imposed conditions to deal with erosion. The professional analysis is that the measures suggested in the geotechnical report and the measures imposed by the ERC should prevent any problems. 18. There are approximately 250 to 300 acres of open space along the Cedar River and the slopes above the river in City ownership or open space. Although a large amount of this property is very steep slopes, there are a developed trail and park located along the river, and there are other level or more gentle areas. To accommodate roads and building pads,most of the vegetation will be removed from the subject site. It would appear that similar clearing probably has occurred for most development on the hill in the past with ornamentals replacing native trees. 19. There will be a loss of over 300 trees of six inches or greater in diameter. This loss of trees and habitat is an unfortunate but foreseeable result of development. Trees and vegetation may be maintained where possible. Open space tracts and ornamental landscaping generally occur as plats are developed and mature. 20. The project was reviewed for compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance and the land clearing regulations. The exception approved for working on the man-made or altered slopes is not unusual and is a remedy available by code. Natural slopes will not be altered or would require special approvals. 21. The original plans called for a substantial grade and fill effort. This would have entailed a large number of dump trucks moving the materials to and from the subject site. The applicant further refined their grading plans and found that generally raising the elevation of the subject site by approximately one(1)foot would significantly reduce the needed trips. This would mean utilizing local materials on site in what is termed a"balanced cut and fill." There would still be export of unsuitable materials or debris that has been dumped on the subject site. It is not anticipated that raising the site by approximately one foot would create any problems with erosion or stability. The number of truck trips would probably be reduced to approximately 750 trips. The original estimate would have generated approximately 3,700 trips. The trucks would meet load limit requirements of the City. While this is not a small number of trips, it is also not unusual where development is occurring, including in residential areas and the City urges that this is generally not a SEPA impact. 22. The existing public roads serving the subject site do not meet current standards. Similar undersized or steep roads serve other older or hilly areas of the City including roads serving areas west of Rainier. At the same time,these older roads serve their neighborhoods or communities. Renton Avenue seems to serve the existing population, and as new residents have moved to Renton Hill they have adjusted to the constraints and limitations. This does not discount the experiences of current residents and that fact that extra care seems necessary to negotiate the roadways and deal with events like snow and ice. The fact is,transportation impact analysis including LOS information and sight distance information shows that the existing road system can handle the additional traffic including the additional approximately 50 to 60 vehicle trips that would be generated during the peak hours. It appears that there may be an approximately 0.2 second delay in wait time at traffic lights. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 9 23. The proposed intersection at SE 7th Court and the subject proposal's entry road will meet City standards for sight distance and angles. Anytime a new intersection is created residents have to accommodate the changes in traffic flow. 24. Renton Avenue South is approximately 26 feet wide and has an approximately 23 foot 2 inch driving surface. There is a 5 inch drop to the gutter. Both telephone poles and hydrants are located close to the right-of-way and driving surface. There are some dips in the road and the crest apparently creates difficult sight problems with traffic driving up and down the hill according the residents. The technical analysis would appear to show that at normal driving sitting position,the view is not significantly impaired. 25. A study of accident history showed no reported accidents during the last three years and three(3) accidents throughout Renton Hill during the last five years. They appeared to be minor accidents resulting in limited property damage but no personal injuries. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there have been a number of"near-miss"and minor accidents but that residents may not have reported some accidents. The assumption then would have to be that they were not major accidents if they remained unreported. 26. - The evidence does suggest that curbs, gutters and sidewalks improve safety but there are areas along what would be the commute route where this is not possible. Limiting speed and driver caution serve to control conflicts. SEPA does not ask an applicant to rectify existing problems, whether traffic or storm water problems, but requires that impacts be appropriately disclosed. 27. The appellant challenged the traffic generation numbers used by the applicant. Those numbers estimate that each single family home generates approximately 9.55 trips. The 57 homes would generate 544.35 trips per day. The estimates also predict that approximately ten percent(10%)of the total trips would occur during each of the peak commuting times or approximately 55 trips. No basis for the challenge was provided. 28. The development, if approved in full,would add 57 homes to an existing inventory of approximately 200 homes,or an approximately 25% increase. There has been some infilling in the last few years,also adding to the inventory. At the same time, some homes were lost to the last expansion and straightening of I-405. The traffic report and City analysis demonstrate that while the roads are not standard,they have sufficient_capacity to handle the additional traffic. There will be impacts,but they are not considered untoward. The LOS for the intersections on the hill will not change as a result of the development. 29. Intersection spacing was found to be able to meet standards for the new intersection,which will be controlled by a stop sign. 30. LOS of A and B exist for the critical intersections and those will not be changed by the development of the subject site, although as indicated, wait times may increase by a fraction of a second. 31. Street maintenance is accomplished as needed. No specific improvements outside the boundaries of the plat will occur other than some possible modification to the intersection at Beacon and 7th. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 10 32. The City works with applicants to develop a construction management plan to deal with traffic, routes and times in order to control access by heavy trucks. This would be done in this case as well. 33. There is an approximately 30 foot wide strip of land between the proposed development and River Ridge,the residential site adjacent to the subject site. Fences are not generally an environmental issue. Setbacks between newer single family and existing single family uses is also not considered a SEPA issue. The project will be providing the required setbacks, and in some instances it intends to provide larger than required setbacks. Larger setbacks than code provides are not required(minimum impacts that would occur with any development and not untoward in any fashion). The additional light and glare created by the new homes is not expected to be out of the ordinary for single family communities. It is not particularly reviewed for single family development. 34. While there is no public bus route serving the hill,residents can apparently use a dial-up service for vans. 35. The proposed density of 6.78 is in the midrange permitted in the R 8 Zone. The R-8 Zone permits a density of between 5 and 8 single family units per acre. 36. There is an approximately 30 foot wide strip of land between the proposed development and Falcon Ridge,the other residential site adjacent to the subject site. 37. Mitigation fees for transportation are distributed after the City Council determines needs in its six year cycle. Maintenance is done as needed. 38. Construction activity and hauling is governed by code provisions limiting the impact on rush hour traffic and limiting it,generally,to daylight hours. In addition,there is the construction management plan. Trucks doing hauling are monitored and "weight tickets" and reports are required. Renton Avenue was checked and it is four inches of asphalt over crushed rock. The City found it acceptable for heavy loads. It currently serves large garbage trucks and fire trucks. 39. The proposed reduction in street width from 50 feet to 42 feet for new roads within the plat boundaries is a code compliance issue and should not generally affect SEPA compliance. 40. The question of who builds the homes and what would be their quality is not a SEPA issue. The City does not control design of single family development nor who may develop such homes if they meet code standards. 41. The applicant and City, in response to the appeal,both noted that asking a series of questions, particularly if the answers are contained in existing studies or covered by existing regulations,does not provide a sufficient basis for overturning a SEPA decision. 42. All of the Findings and Conclusions of the companion Plat Report are incorporated into this report by reference. Heritage Renton Hill - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend,93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976,stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS,since the test is - less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the"arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued.In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document,an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant"as follows: a. Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. b. (2) Significance involves context and intensity...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact....The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great,but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term"probable." c. Probable. "Probable"means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 5. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short- term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal,as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 12 for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 6. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development,whether an office building or a single family development, may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. 7. There is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood and there may definitely be inconvenience, particularly during construction. There will be clear changes to the subject site. But these changes do not necessarily rise to the level of impact mandated by SEPA to require the preparation of an EIS. The development will not significantly alter the character of the community. It will be single family in character,just like the surrounding development. Adding additional single family homes to the existing single family community is not dramatic. It will not trigger changes to other undeveloped or low density sites and will not create any precedents generating calls for changes to the residential zoning already governing the area. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designated the area for urban densities. In addition,while additional traffic will flow through the main commute route into downtown Renton,the proposed community is located on the edge of the community, not in the midst of the existing community,and its overall impacts will not be very significant. 8. Traffic seems to be a key issue presented by the appellant,and traffic's associated issues such as narrow and steep roads,heavy construction traffic and stopping distance and sight distance on the hill and at the new intersection. These are legitimate concerns, but the evidence does not provide a basis for altering the ERC's decision. They will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The development will permanently add more traffic of a kind that traffic analysis shows the streets currently handle without appreciably increasing commute times,overloading roads or increasing conflicts significantly in terms of SEPA impacts that would require more detailed information than has been prepared in the various technical studies reviewed by the ERC. It will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The development will generate impacts similar to those that now exist. 9. There definitely will be more traffic. That occurs anytime new development occurs. The streets leaving the hill are definitely steep and narrow. The various analyses demonstrate that the LOS will not be substantially changed. The analyses also demonstrate that while there are some constraints due to the steepness of the hill and the narrowness of the roadway, but that the additional traffic can be safely accommodated. 10. The most pronounced change will be the removal of the forest cover on the ten acres. This acreage has been cleared in the past and the site topography altered by what appears to have been quarrying activity. But clearing of trees alone is not sufficient to trigger the preparation of an EIS. Nothing in record suggests that this alone will create such a significant impact on the quality of the environment that additional information is needed. This acreage needs to be looked at in the context of the adjacent 200 to 300 acres of forest and habitat. It also needs to be looked at in terms of surrounding uses. The areas around the site are mostly urban and developed with single family homes such as proposed for the subject site. There is already a park located immediately across from the site. While animals will probably be displaced,there appears to be sufficient open space immediately adjacent to the site to provide habitat. Nothing in the record demonstrates the any large species or threatened species permanently inhabit the subject site. Heritage Renton Hill ' ' Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 13 11. Construction impacts will be irritating to those who live near the subject site and construction traffic will have impacts on the community as a whole,but they are not the type of impacts which have more than a short-lived impact and they are not the types of impacts that would throw the ERC's decision into doubt. In addition,code provides for construction management plans, and there remains the possibility that the pipeline road could serve some construction uses. In addition,the applicant has substantially reduced the amount of materials that would need to be transported either to or from the subject site. This will substantially reduce the originally anticipated truck traffic. 12. While there will be a series of impacts as there are in any development,they do not add up in a quantifiable manner to the type of impacts or long term precedents that result in more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. Issues such as quality or character of development, fencing, setback standards in excess of those required,code permitted exceptions to slope clearing or roadway width are not appropriately SEPA issues. Access to the site across the pipeline road is a condition of development,and if it were not granted,that would have a profound affect on the proposal and is not a SEPA issue. The creation of internal parks and open space and maintenance are not SEPA issues. The manner of adoption of the reclassification of the site is not a SEPA issue. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. There was a thorough review of geotechnical information that showed the site could be developed. There were two traffic reports, including slope analysis of sight distance issues,that demonstrated the current roads,while not meeting - current standards have capacity for the additional traffic anticipated. 14. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. MINUTES: PRELIMINARY PLAT The following minutes are a summary of the November 16 and December 12,2000 preliminary plat hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Thursday,November 16 at 11:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Because of time constraints,Mr.Mehlhaff,Ms.Liston,Mr. Giuliani,Mr.Ellis,Ms. Fulfer,Ms. Herman, Ms. Lamke,and Mr. Fulfer testified regarding the preliminary plat during the appeal portion of the hearing. Their comments appear later in the minutes. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: Heritage Renton Hill - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 14 Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file,LUA00- Exhibit No.2: Overall plat plan 053,PP,ECF, containing the original application,proof of posting,proof of publication an other documentation pertinent to this request Exhibit No.3: Sheet 2 of 4, larger scale drawing of Exhibit No.4: Sheet 3 of 4, larger scale drawing of plat plan plat plan Exhibit No. 5: Sheet 4 of 4, preliminary plat plan Exhibit No.6: Topographic survey Exhibit No. 7: Tree cutting and land clearing plan Exhibit.No.8: Drainage control plan Exhibit No. 9: Generalized utilities plan Exhibit No. 10: Detailed grading plan Exhibit No. 11: Neighborhood detail map Exhibit No. 12: Zoning map Exhibit No. 13: Plat map of lots along north border Exhibit No. 14: Timeline of project showing buffer Exhibit No. 15: Wildlife Report Exhibit No. 16: Original plat map of River Ridge Exhibit No. 17: Stopping sight distances drawing Exhibit No. 18: Stopping sight distances chart Exhibit No. 19: Stopping sight distances chart and Exhibit No.20: Renton Ave. S. stopping sight topographic distances Exhibit No. 21: Traffic Count Charts(6 sheets) Exhibit No.22: Aerial photograph of River Ridge Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 presented the staff report. Bennett Development has proposed subdivision of an approximately 450,846 square feet(10.35 acre)property into 57 lots suitable for detached, single family houses. The triangular-shaped property is located on Renton Hill, southeast of the intersection of Beacon Way S with SE 7th Ct,Jones Ave S, and South 7th St. Although Renton Hill is a well established neighborhood, land abutting the proposed project to the north has been developed fairly recently into River Ridge, an eleven lot subdivision. Falcon Ridge, a large(80 lot)subdivision, lies to the southeast. Philip Arnold Park is adjacent to the southwest. The Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline,which is used occasionally for overflow parking from the park,separates the park from the proposed development property. The zoning designation for the property is R-8. Most of Renton Hill is zoned R-8 except for a strip of land on the west side above I-405 which is zoned R-10. Access would be from a new public street that would intersect with SE 7th Ct. The new street would terminate in a cul-de-sac. An emergency-only access would connect the cul-de-sac with the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline. A modification from street standards has been requested to reduce the width of the public right-of-way from 50 feet to 42 feet. This modification has been approved by the director of the Development Services Department. It would not reduce the pavement width, only the right-of-way width,and would not affect the ability to have sidewalks in the development. Ms Higgins continued by stating that the Environmental Review Committee(ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated on October 17, 200. One appeal was filed prior to the close of the appeal period. The ERC placed several mitigating measures on the project. The first four relate to erosion control on the project and are best management practices as required by the City. The applicant shall pay applicable Transportation,Fire and Parks mitigation fees. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical engineers as they pertain to site development and building construction. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat prior to recording stating that a known potential for ground subsidence exists in the area and that building plans shall be designed in consultation with a structural engineer and shall conform to the recommendations of the Geotech report. The rear setback at the lot located in the northeast corner of the property, Lot#35,shall be increased to 25 feet from 20 feet. A note shall be placed on the title of the lot prohibiting building construction within 25 feet of the of the rear property boundary and prohibit land clearing Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 15 within 10 feet of the rear property line. The applicant shall ensure that all construction debris and discarded items are excavated from the site and construction is ceased immediately,followed by notification of the City of Renton Development Services Division within 24 hours, should hazardous material be discovered during the removal. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall include a condition that the construction vehicles in excess of 20,000 gvw associated with the project would be prohibited from operating on Renton Hill during a.m.and p.m. peak traffic hours as identified in the traffic report. The applicant shall obtain an access permit in order to use the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement for a secondary, emergency only access. The permit shall be obtained prior to building permits. Ms.Higgins described the property and discussed how the proposal meets the various requirements of the Preliminary Plat Criteria: The proposed project meets the first objective of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element by providing new housing in what up to now has been underutilized land. It also provides a greater - use of urban services and infrastructure. The proposed project would meet the policy of meeting net density levels by providing density of 6.86 dwelling units per acre. The lots are proposed at an average size of 5,350 square feet. The range of lot sizes is 4,504 to 8,318 square feet. Both the Development Standards and the Comprehensive Plan polices limit the height of building to two stories in the R-8 zone. The question of transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods is difficult on Renton Hill due to its situation of being isolated from the rest of the city and having limited access. There will be pedestrian connections throughout the neighborhood from new sidewalks that are going to be added and the Cedar River Pipeline. Three areas in the proposed site plan in the proximity of the entryway are going to be set aside as commonly held open spaces. It is not anticipated that the vegetation will be retained,but they will be landscaped. Staff recommends that a landscape plan be submitted to Development Services for review prior to building permits. The Comprehensive Plan included a forecast of Renton's traffic increase for a twenty year period. In the plan, it was estimated that there would be a 52% increase in traffic in Renton between 1990 and 2010. The estimated traffic increase on Cedar and Renton Avenues on Renton Hill would be approximately 25%from the proposed project. This appears to be consistent with projected city-wide traffic volume increases. Ms.Higgins discussed how the project meets the Housing Mandates in the Comprehensive Plan. The Growth Management Act requires the City to plan how it will accommodate its share of the projected population growth. The projected population growth for a 20 year period is determined by the Puget Sound Regional Council,and it was distributed to all cities and counties in the Puget Sound region. The Comprehensive Plan has to address how the City will provide housing for all economic segments of the City's population,and delineates the strategies for doing that. Ms Higgins reviewed some of the policies of the Housing Element and explained how they are met by the proposal. Ms.Higgins continued by reviewing how the proposal meets the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the policies that staff felt were met by the proposed project are: minimizing erosion and sedimentation by requiring appropriate construction techniques; implementing surface water management systems which protect natural features; promoting the return of precipitation to the soil at natural rates near where it falls through the use of detention ponds,grassy swales, and infiltration; promoting development design which minimizes impermeable surface coverage;and managing the cumulative effects of storm water through a combination of engineering and preservation of natural systems. Slopes on the property were probably created by surface mining activity, and are therefore exempt from the Critical Areas Ordinance. The stormwater control system would provide adequate protection of the City's water resource. The applicant has estimated that approximately 389 trees sized 6 inches in diameter and greater Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 16 and of various types would be removed from the property for construction. The applicant must adhere to the requirements of the Forest Practices Act. There are several areas in the project that are going to be preserved as "landscape tracts." The proposed project would meet all of the underlying zoning standards for the R-8 zone. The front, rear, and side setback lines indicated on the Preliminary Plat plan meet the minimum setback requirements for the R-8 zone. The maximum building coverage in the R-8 zone is 50% of lots 5,000 square feet or smaller and 35%of, or 2,500 square feet on, lots larger than 5,000 square feet. Compliance with the building coverage regulations would be a requirement of the building permit process. Ms. Higgins next reviewed the proposal's compliance with the subdivision regulations. All lots created by the subdivision would result in legal building lots according to the regulations for the R-8 zone. All parcels must have access established to a public road,which would occur by either directly off the public roads that would be built or from the two private roads or driveway that would be placed on the property. Side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines--they would be in this project. All lot corners at intersections would have a radius of a minimum of 15 feet. Police and Fire have indicated they have sufficient resources to furnish services. The Parks and Recreation Department has also concurred that they could provide service. Renton School District has stated that new students, estimated to be approximately 25, could be accommodated in Talbot Hill Elementary School, Dimmitt Middle School,and Renton Senior High School. The School District further requested that the existing school busses be allowed to continue their route through the area, which would be allowed. The conceptual stormwater plan has been accepted by the Plan Review Division,as have the conceptual water and sanitary sewer plan. Staff recommends approval of the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: (1)that the applicant comply with the ERC Mitigation Measures as they have been amended, (2)that all landscape tract areas,with the exception of the 5,402 square foot tract located at the entry,the private"park", and the landscape area adjacent to the storm pond be incorporated into lots already proposed, and(3) commonly held open space areas shall be enhanced prior to occupancy with landscaping including mixed deciduous and evergreen trees and plantings of native shrubs and groundcover, and the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Development Services Department for approval. An additional condition would be that a homeowners'association be established and that one of the requirements be that they would be responsible for maintaining the private stormwater system and the commonly held landscape area, including the 15 foot buffers. The Examiner stated that he will schedule an evening hearing to conclude this matter in order to accommodate those who have to leave due to prior commitments. The various parties will be notified of the date and time of the evening hearing. The hearing closed at 12:40 p.m. ********************************** The hearing opened on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Ms. Higgins gave a brief review of the project based on the Staff Report,which was presented at the hearing on December 16. Ms.Higgins stated that staff has added a recommendation which was not presented at the last hearing,that a Hold Harmless Agreement shall be recorded that indemnifies the City of Renton from any damage resulting from subsidence that may occur due to previous subsurface mining activities. Heritage Renton Hill ' Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Fike presented a timeline explaining how the design for the project developed. In March of 1999 Renton School District selected Bennett Development as the purchasers. In September 1999 the mandatory pre- application meeting was held with the City. At that time plans for a 69-lot subdivision were submitted, designed around access from Beacon Way S. It was subsequently determined that Beacon Way S could not be accessed off of, since it is an easement owned by the City of Seattle and they do not want it used as a public right-of-way. In January of 2000,another pre-application meeting was held with the City of Renton and a new design for the project was submitted,based on input from community groups and the Cities of Renton and Seattle. This new design eliminated the Beacon Way access and showed access off of S 7th Ct. A stub road that would cross over the pipeline and go into Philip Arnold Park was included. The City of Renton determined that the stub road was not needed. A design was subsequently developed showing a buffer setback along the north border of the property In April of 2000 the developer sent a submittal package to Renton Hill community leaders showing them what was going to be submitted to the City of Renton. This showed a 56-lot subdivision. In May,the City of Renton deemed the application complete,but asked that the access road across the pipeline be removed. With the removal of the access road,the project went from 56 lots to 57. The City also asked the developer to do additional traffic counts. A three-week traffic study was done during the summer which took into consideration increased traffic from sports activities held in the area. Mr. Fike submitted a study which was done by a wildlife biologist in the period since the last hearing. The report shows that there are deer on the property;however,there were no signs of deer nesting there. An eagle that nests on the south tip of Mercer Island uses the Cedar River as a fishing ground. This may be the eagle that is seen over the Cedar River and approaching the property. There are no signs of an eagle nesting on the property. The wildlife report shows that the project has minimal, if any, wildlife assessments. Regarding the pipeline easement,Mr. Fike explained that the City of Seattle views pipeline usage as a privilege. In order to be good neighbors with the City of Renton, Seattle overlooks things such as possibly driving trucks over the pipeline rather than through the neighborhood, and school buses using the pipeline. The City of Seattle will only issue Conditional Use Permits for the pipeline. The developer has a verbal agreement with Seattle that they will be able to have emergency vehicle access on the pipeline. Ms Higgins entered an original plat map which shows the entry to River Ridge as it was proposed,crossing the School District property,then intersecting the pipeline. A letter in the files from the City of Renton's Utilities Systems Manager at the time to the Real Property Division of the Seattle Water Department explains why the entryway to River Ridge was moved into the present position, and shows further evidence that the Seattle Public Utilities does not want the pipeline to be used for general traffic. John Nelson,Peterson Consulting Engineering,4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 200,Kirkland, WA 98033 explained what sight distance is and what kinds there are, using a sight distances drawing. Using charts and a topographic map, he explained stopping sight distance and how it is determined for different types of vehicles and several actual road slopes in the Renton Hill Area. Mr.Nelson stated that as a result of his analysis and actually driving the roads in question,he did not think there is any significant problem with sight distances on the roads in Renton Hill. Larry Hobbs,Transportation Planning and Engineering,Inc.,2223 112th Avenue NE, Suite 101,Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that typically intersections are made with three or four legs; however,five-legged intersections do exist. All of the legs of the intersection are stop controlled. There are no records of any accidents at the intersection over the past five years. There is no reason to believe this intersection does not operate safely and Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 18 adequately. There is enough capacity in the intersection to handle the traffic that is there now, and the future development. The intersection itself is relatively flat. Sight distance criteria does not come into effect at the intersection, since all vehicles must stop. Ms. Higgins clarified the Zoning Code as it relates to the project. In the R-8 Zone,the City requests that a developer try to have at least five units per net acre,with a maximum of eight units per net acre. If for some reason a developer chooses not to develop to the maximum density, or if they are trying to develop below the minimum density,the City requests that the developer demonstrate that future lots could be developed on the property. The City asks for a technique called shadow platting which would create hypothetical lots that would have the proper setbacks and be conforming lots given the requirement of that zone so that in the future those lots could be developed. Mark Mehlhaff,532 Grant Ave S, Renton,WA 98055 addressed the issue of road safety on Renton Avenue S. Many drivers tend to use excessive speed going up the hill because of the steepness of the grade. This, combined with limited sight distances and cars parked on the side of the street,creates a dangerous situation. Mr.Mehlhaff asked why Puget Drive and the pipeline cannot be opened up for use of construction vehicles and general traffic to alleviate the congested conditions on Renton Avenue S and Cedar Avenue. Nancy Liston, 1518 Beacon Way S,Renton,WA 98055 spoke to the issues of tranquility and quality of life on Renton Hill. Ms. Liston expressed concern that the tranquility of the area would be greatly impacted by the increased traffic, noise,dirt and dust generated by the large trucks and construction equipment . She stated that the streets and parks on the hill were never intended for the increased number of vehicles and people who will be occupying 57 homes. Ms. Liston also discussed the issue of intersection safety. She has witnessed people not obeying the stop signs,and has seen many near-misses. Ms. Liston also expressed concern about deer crossing the street,particularly at night,and the safety of bicyclists on the streets. John Giuliani, 1400 South 7th Street, Renton, WA stated that the new exit off of Renton Hill has no bearing on the traffic on Renton Avenue, since it is necessary to travel on Renton Avenue to get to the new exit. Mr. Giuliani further stated that when Renton Ave was repaved,he personally observed that all the asphalt was removed down to the dirt. New asphalt was placed directly on top of the dirt with no gravel base underneath to anchor it. Quentin Ellis, 715 High Ave S., Renton, WA 98055 stated that there have been a lot of sophisticated studies made by the City and others regarding this project,but it all boils down to one word--infrastructure. The infrastructure that has to be maintained is not there. He cited a newspaper article regarding the Habitat program's plan to build low income housing on a ten acre parcel in Snoqualmie Ridge. They are only proposing to build 50 houses on those ten acres. This proposed project plans to build 57 homes in an area with only one street that is only 23.6 feet wide,as opposed to the normal 40 to 50 foot width. He expressed concern about the mine shafts in the area and the possibility of sink holes developing with the increased traffic on Renton Avenue S. Mr. Ellis challenged Bennett Development's traffic engineer to substantiate his statement that there would not be an increase in the number of accidents on Renton Hill. He questioned how, considering the 25%increase in traffic anticipated,the engineer could make that statement. Wendy Fulfer, 1729 SE 7th Ct,Renton, WA 98055 stated she lives in River Ridge. The intersection where she comes out of her development is already a five-way intersection. Adding another street would only add to the difficult situation at the intersection. Ms. Fulfer added that she personally makes eight to ten trips off the hill Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 19 every day. She expressed concern about the deer and other wildlife in the area, including nesting eagles, if the property is developed. Sharon Herman, 711 Jones Ave S,Renton, WA 98055 stated that the contractor of River Ridge had the opportunity to build 23 homes. He elected to build only 12 homes out of respect to the neighborhood and the residents of Renton Hill. Ms. Herman further stated that she feels the property value of her home will drop because of all the traffic and the smaller homes that will not fit in with the rest of Renton Hill. Becky Lamke,415 Cedar Ave S, Renton,WA 98055 stated that she feels the massive size of the project is an undue burden to the current residents of the Hill. The number of cars and speed of the vehicles on Cedar Ave is already excessive for the number of homes that are there. The project should be forced to have their entrance and exit off of Puget Drive. The increased traffic and safety issues due to the slope of the streets all lead to Puget Drive being the best alternative. Ms. Lamke asked why Renton School District is still listed as the owner. She questioned whether the property been sold,or if that is contingent on whether the project is approved. Ms. Lamke stated that a clear cutting of this ten acres of mature forest could be detrimental to the Cedar River and to salmon recovery. Mike Fulfer, 1729 SE 7th Ct,Renton, WA 98055 asked why the buffer on the north edge of the project was included in the setback of the homes and not separate from the lots. He asked who is responsible for providing and maintaining the vegetation in the buffer. He expressed concern about the increased number of trips per day as a result of the new homes. He further stated that the project will be out of place because of the density of the homes,and will change the character of the neighborhood and quality of life of the residents. Mr.Fulfer discussed stopping distances of vehicles and expressed concern that the stopping distances involved are right on the limit of safety. Being on the edge of safety should only be allowed in a controlled environment such as a race track,not on Renton Hill. Bentley Oaks, 1321 S 7th, Renton,WA 98055 addressed the sight distances issue. Most people drive in excess of 30-35 mph on Renton Ave. S. Considering the reaction time required,and trying to find a place to stop because of parked cars along the street, it can be a dangerous situation. It is important that the human factor be considered rather than just using an engineering study. Doug Brandt 610 Renton Ave. S, Renton, WA 98055 asked if Mr.Nelson made specific measurements on the two crests that exist on Renton Ave. S.or if he relied only on charts for his analysis. Mark Johnson,316 Renton Ave. S., Renton, WA 98055 questioned the 6%grade, which is an average. The transition between 3% and 9% is sudden,so that close to the end of the 3%grade, it is effectively a 9%grade, not an average of a 6%grade. That would make a dramatic difference in the calculations. He expressed concern that cars are moving in both directions,the road is narrow, cars and trucks are parked on the side, and there is nowhere to go. Regarding speeds on the bridges,Mr.Johnson stated that speed limits are not observed. He feels that adding more cars is not something the road can handle safely. Dana Calhoun,433 Cedar Ave. S,Renton, WA 98055 stated that she feels the sidewalks, particularly on Renton Ave. S, are inadequate. The intersection at 7th and Beacon Way is very busy,especially during softball games. There are no crosswalks, and sometimes no sidewalks. Bicycling on the streets is dangerous. Ms. Calhoun said she backs into her driveway because she does not want to have to back onto the street considering the dangerous conditions that exist. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 20 Bill Collins,420 Cedar Ave. S., Renton WA 98055 entered traffic count charts that are a graphic version of traffic issues on Renton Hill. Using these charts,Mr. Collins explained how the increased number of cars would impact traffic conditions on various roads at various times of the day in the Renton Hill area. Rosemary Grassi,422 Cedar Ave. S,Renton, WA 98055 stated that this traffic count information was provided by Mr. Mar from the City. It is the City's latest official count of traffic on Renton Hill. The counts show that there would be 813 passes of vehicles on Cedar Avenue per day. On Renton Avenue S,there will be around 1,100 passes per day. There is also a problem of enforcement regarding stop signs. Ms. Grassi stated the Mr. Potter,who is president of the Falcon Ridge Homeowners Association,has signed a statement that he is opposed to this development. She also expressed concern that their appears to be an effort to "dump" affordable housing and apartments from other cities into Renton. Linda McManus, 530 Renton Ave. S., Renton,WA 98055 addressed the issue of accidents on Renton Ave. S. Ms.McManus stated that she was personally involved in an accident last summer on Renton Ave. S. The person coming down the hill failed to yield,and Ms.McManus' vehicle was forced into a telephone pole. She does not know why this accident wasn't recorded. Ms.McManus stated she has personally witnessed many near-accidents on Renton Hill S. She expressed her concern about safety issues in general in the Renton Hill area. Bart Bennett, 1800 SE 7th Ct., Renton, WA 98055 expressed concern that Lot#35 does not have the 15 foot greenbelt that the other lots in the development have. He also expressed concern about the possibility of the S- way intersection being changed into a 7-way intersection. He questioned the distances of the stop signs from the intersection. Mr. Bennett also stated that the intersection of Renton Ave. S and 7th is a 3-way stop,which is also extremely dangerous because of the steepness of the hill. He feels that his project is too large for the street system to handle. Mr. Bennett stated that he lives on Lot#5 in River Ridge. He has a sink hole in his back yard which he has dumped about 50 bags of sand into,and it is still fairly deep. Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S,Renton, WA 98055 stated that the residents of Renton Hill did not oppose River Ridge because it brought sewer service to those people living above Renton Avenue S. They were not opposed to Falcon Ridge. The only problem with Falcon Ridge was that their original plan was to remove the gate and use the pipeline for access. The residents did not want the gate removed because of traffic concerns. Falcon Ridge put in their own access road instead. Ms.Larson reviewed the safety issue on Renton Avenue S, and stated emphatically that this issue must be addressed before approval. Kayren Kittrick stated that there is an enforcement issue regarding traffic in the Renton Hill area. The City has programs in place for monitoring these things,and the Police Department should be made aware of the problem. If the City does improvements on Renton Avenue South,it means the streets and sidewalks will be widened,which will take away from front yards along the street and actually increase traffic speeds on the street will increase. The blocking off of the lane on Mill Avenue by Metro is temporary during the construction of the Transit Center. Regarding reports of accidents on Renton Hill,these were done by checking Police reports.The Police Department reported three accidents in five years. All of them involved hitting of stationery objects. Ms. Kittrick stated that pipeline is allowed to be used for emergency access only, not for general access. The pipeline is gated at the request of the local citizens in order to decrease traffic, and can be opened only for emergency access. Regarding sink holes,Ms.Kittrick stated that the City maintenance crews have been monitoring the sink hole on Renton Avenue S. She has no other reports of sink holes in the area. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 21 Ms.Higgins stated that the Geotechnical Report indicates there is no surface evidence of former coal mines. The area is very inadequately mapped, so no one really knows if there are mines in the area or where they are located. Residents of the area have had problems with sink holes. That is the reason the City wanted to make sure that new residents would at least receive a warning that this could be a problem so that they could plan for it by having a structural engineer design the foundations of their house. Mr.Nelson discussed the enforcement issue on Renton Hill. The developer cannot and should not try to accommodate people who do not follow the law. Mr.Nelson discussed reaction times and sight distances and stopping times of trucks. He also described the locations where measurements were made for the study and the relationship of road grades and sight distances. Mr.Nelson described how the intersections at 7th and Renton Avenue and 7th and Cedar Avenue are controlled with stop signs. Mark McGinnis Geotech Consultants, 13256 NE 20th Street#16,Bellevue, WA 98005 addressed the issue of coal mines and the question of a sink hole at Lot#5 in River Ridge. There is a deep mine under this area that is over 500 feet below ground surface. The shallower mine workings,which are the ones that seem to be giving the most problems on Renton Hill, do not extend that far to the east into the River Ridge development or into _-_ the proposed project's property. There are shallow mines under the western portion of Renton Hill,but they would not be under Lot#5. Regarding the subsidence on Renton Avenue S,Mr. McGinnis stated that he drove the street again and noticed many patches in the road, indicating some repaving and filling. The size of the patches is relatively small. Subsidence associated with a coal mine,related either to an air shaft or the collapse of the tunnel itself,would be several thousand square feet in size. The small areas of subsidence and patching on Renton Avenue S appear to be related to utilities, improper compaction,or soft road sub-grade conditions that have been dealt with over time. Considering the depths of the mines, and the time that has elapsed since the last known workings under the property(at least 75 years) if large subsidence were to occur, it would have ,.- occurred already. Ms.Higgins discussed the issue of the increased setback on Lot#35 and the reasons for it. Ms.Higgins explained that we encourage quality development by looking at the layout of the plan and making sure it meets the requirements of the development standards that are set forth in the Code. Those are the minimal standards the City Council has felt should be applied in each neighborhood. Other factors that are looked at are the context of the project,development that has taken place in the past,and how the City plans to develop in the future. The City has housing goals that have been set by the Puget Sound Regional Council as to the amount of population that Renton, as well as other cities that are within the Growth Management Act,must meet. Regarding the question of stormwater drainage,Ms.Higgins stated that roof drains will be allowed to infiltrate. Stormwater from the driveways and streets would be collected in the stormwater pond,where it would receive treatment prior to release. It would be a controlled release,as there have been some stormwater problems in that area. Mr. Hobbs stated that the January 2000 Traffic Study was done based on the then current lot number count of 60 lots. This would mean a net reduction of 3 p.m. peak hour trips,and roughly 30 daily trips. The Traffic Report shows that there will be less than 1,500 trips per day on Renton Avenue S,which will be well below capacity for a one-way section. Mr.Hobbs stated that there would be an increased traffic volume on Renton Hill from this project. Regarding safety on Renton Hill,Mr.Hobbs said his statement that accidents should increased was based on accidents of record. The enforcement issue of people not obeying stop signs and speed limits is a consideration. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 22 Mr.Giuliani stated that the air shafts from the underground mines are made of wood timbers and are approximately 14 to 15 feet in diameter. He expressed his concern that the wood timbers will rot over time. There have already been three incidents of cave-ins. One took place across the street from his home. The air shafts were not blocked off from the mines below,they were filled and blocked off 50 or 75 feet from the top. The passage of time makes the situation more dangerous,not less so. Mr.Brandt questioned exactly where Mr.Nelson made the sight distance measurements on Renton Hill. Mr.Nelson replied that graphical measurements were made on 7th Avenue from the project site all the way down to Renton Avenue S and Cedar,then all the way down Renton Avenue S and Cedar to the bottom of the hill. These were graphical measurements made on the computer. On-the-ground field work was done all the way up Renton Avenue S. Jeff Schultek, 613 Grant Avenue S, Renton,WA 98055 stated that sometime between 1980 and 1982,a garage was taken down through a sink hole at 820 Renton Avenue S. Mr. Ed Gouch owned the property at that time. Mr. Schultek expressed his concern about safety issues on Renton Hill, particularly in regard to emergency vehicle access. Ms. McManus expressed her concern that the Geotechnical Report has a disclaimer on it. Ms.McManus stated that she has a sinkhole on the side of her property. Her neighbor,Marie Overman,has had to have coal mining engineers flown in from Montana because her driveway caved in. Ms. Gygi stated that Bennett Development does not object to the idea of a Hold Harmless agreement that would be a covenant against the land itself. Bennett Development does object to the idea of a bond being placed that would the hold the developer liable into the future. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 9:00 p.m. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Ryan Fike,Bennett Development filed a request for approval of a 57-lot Preliminary Plat together with Tracts for open space. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. An appeal of that determination was filed by the Renton Hill Community Association. A hearing on that appeal was consolidated with the hearing on this plat. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 23 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located near the intersection of Beacon Way SE, S 7th Court and S 7th Street. The property is located immediately across from Philip Arnold Park. 6. The subject site a triangular parcel approximately 1.114 feet by 818 feet by 829 feet. 7. The subject site is approximately 10.35 acres or 450,846 square feet in area. 8. The subject site has rolling terrain but has steeper slopes along the northeast corner of the site. There are also some steeper slopes on the interior of the subject site that were determined to be manmade as part of past mining or quarrying activity. An exemption from steep slope regulations was issued administratively since the steeper slopes are not natural. 9. Although the slopes are not regulated by the Land Clearing and other development regulations,the ERC imposed a series of conditions to control erosion and deal with geotechnical issues. The subject site is located within Aquifer Protection Area 2. 10. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1861 enacted in February 1961. 11. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family- 8 dwelling units/acre). It received this designation in June 1993. 12. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family uses. 13. The subject site is vacant. It currently is owned by the Renton School District but the applicant has an option to purchase the property. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 57 single family lots. There would also be tracts for storm water detention and open space. Staff has recommended that most of these tracts be incorporated into adjacent lots to minimize potential maintenance issues. 15. The development of the subject site would require tree removal. Approximately.389 trees of 6 inches or greater diameter would be removed to allow for the construction of roads,building pads and storm drainage systems. A Class IV permit will be required to convert forest land to residential purposes. The applicant has indicated an intention to save some trees near the detention pond and property entrance if grading work permits. 16. The lots range in size from 4,504 square feet to approximately 8,318 square feet. Staff estimates that the average lot size would be approximately 5,350 square feet. The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone is 4,500 square feet. • Heritage Renton Hill - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUAOO-149,AAD and LUA0O-O53,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 24 17. The Beacon Way Seattle Pipeline Road runs in a southeast to northwest diagonal along the southwest angle of the subject site. It connects to Puget Drive SE and Royal Hills Drive SE on the east. The roadway is not a public roadway and has a gated barricade to prevent through traffic. Philip Arnold Park is located on the southwest side of that roadway. The road does provide access to Philip Arnold Park from the east. School buses also use this road approaching from the east, and a school bus stop is located east of the barricade. School buses do not negotiate the steep hills from the I-405 side of Renton Hill. 18. Apparently,the pipeline road was open as a through-street in the past but was closed to reduce traffic passing across Renton Hill and down the steep roadways east of I-405. This also coincided with the then limitation of only one crossing of I-405 that also crossed railroad tracks that could totally block access to the hill. Reconstruction and realignment of I-405 during the last decade provided a second crossing of 1-405, and both crossings are elevated and therefore removed the railroad crossing. 19. The proposed layout would create a looped roadway in the interior of the plat with a cul-de-sac road providing access to the southeast corner of the subject site. A gated, emergency access connection would be installed between the dead end cul-de-sac and the Seattle Pipeline roadway, with Seattle's permission. 20. The proposed roadways would be 42 feet wide instead of the standard 50 feet, since the applicant requested an administrative modification to reduce width,which was approved. Road dimensions are determined by the Director administratively. 21. The lots would be located along the perimeter of the triangular shaped parcel as well as in the interior of the loop. The interior block would contain 13 single family lots as well as a"park"tract. 22. Eight lots would be served by either pipe stem or private roadways. Proposed Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17 would be served by private access easement or roads. Similarly,Proposed Lots 20, 21 and 22 would be served by private access roadway. Proposed Lot 35 would be located on a pipe stem driveway. 23. In order to prepare the site for the building pads and the new roads,the applicant will clear most of the vegetation from the site. Some trees may be preserved near the detention system. The slopes adjacent to Proposed Lot 35 would remain undisturbed, since there are steeper slopes that will be protected. 24. The applicant proposes open space and the storm water detention pond at the entrance to the plat. The road will pass through this open space. As the roadway splits to form the loop roadway,a small park will be located on the inside of the "Y" in the road. The applicant has proposed three triangular landscaped areas along the pipeline road to fill in between rectangular lots. Since the pipeline road runs at an angle,creating rectangular lots required these open space areas. As noted, staff recommended that these areas be incorporated into the adjacent lots to avoid maintenance problems. 25. Development of 57 single family homes will generate approximately 545 vehicle trips per day(based on approximately 9.55 trips per dwelling). It is anticipated that approximately 10%of the traffic trips will occur at each of the morning and evening peak hours. Staff has also estimated that the 57 homes will increase traffic on Renton Hill by approximately 25 percent. This is based on the fact that there Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 25 are approximately 200 homes on the hill currently. The ERC imposed mitigation measures for fee generation. Staff noted that the City anticipated an increase in overall traffic of approximately 50 percent,and that the 25 percent increase was reasonable. 26. The traffic analysis shows that the major intersections serving this site,Main Avenue S and S 4th Street, Houser Way and Mill,Cedar and S 3rd and Renton Avenue and S 7th will suffer no degradation in LOS. The LOS for the first two intersections will remain at B,while the latter two intersections would remain at LOS A. 27. An analysis of historical traffic accidents showed only three minor accidents and no accidents resulting in injuries. Residents report that there have been a number of"near-misses" and residents living along Renton and Cedar must exercise diligence in using the driveways. 28. The width and slopes of Renton Avenue and Cedar and the other roads serving the subject site from downtown Renton,the only open access to the hill, do not meet current development standards. At the same time, staff reports that these roads have capacity to handle additional traffic and that these roads can also safely handle the additional traffic. Staff did suggest that new residents would have to adjust to the conditions of access just as other residents on the hill have adjusted in the past, including other new residents. 29. The development of the subject site will generate approximately 25 school age children. These students would be spread among the different grades of the Renton School District. 30. The City will provide sanitary sewer service and domestic water. 31. The ERC imposed additional storm water detention requirements due to the topography and location of the subject site. The proposal will have to comply with the newest King County requirements. Staff reports that the conceptual drainage plan appears to adequately serve the subject site. Staff recommended a homeowners association be required to maintain the detention system. 32. While traffic and transportation issues were a concern of the neighbors,the Transportation Division did not appear at the public hearing. Questions were handled by other planning and development staff. 33. In addition to the steep slopes along the northeast margins of the subject site,the subject site is located over old, abandoned coal mine tunnels and other workings. Old records and maps were also reviewed. The property was surveyed and inspected and did not show any evidence of mines or shafts. 'It does appear that the site was a quarry at one time. There are disturbed soils and slopes. A geotechnical analysis provides methods for preventing foundations from being affected if there should be subsidence. The studies also had other suggestions for dealing with the subject site, but indicated that there should not be any problems evident at the surface. Apparently,there have been incidents on the hill of subsidence in the past. The geotechnical information shows that the soils can bear development. The City did recommend that the applicant execute a "hold harmless" agreement regarding the coal mines in case some problems were to arise. • Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 26 34. In order to develop the subject site,the applicant will be excavating and filling the subject site. Originally,the applicant was going to export and import materials to level the site. The applicant proposes to alter those plans and do a balanced cut and fill. This will reduce the amount of materials that need to be transported to or from the subject site, reducing the number of truck trips substantially. 35. Development of the subject site will not change the single family character of the area but will generate additional population and traffic as well as other attendant changes more people bring to an area. 36. The homeowners would be required to maintain the open space tracts at the entrance and the park area. 37. All of the Findings and Conclusions of the companion SEPA Appeal Report are incorporated into this report by reference. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The public interest in approving a preliminary plat depends on balancing a variety of interests. The City is bound by the Growth Management Act and has determined the appropriate density under that act for R-8 Districts is between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre. For this parcel with a net site area of 8.31 acres,the 57 homes yields a density of 6.86 dwelling units per acre. At the same time,the increase in traffic projected for this project is approximately 25 percent over current traffic. This is not an issue that merely equates to LOS and technical issues. This means approximately 550 additional trips will be traveling up and down very steep, narrow roads. Staff noted that the Comprehensive Plan forecast a growth of 52 percent, but those projections would clearly have a lot of that traffic directed efficiently to arterial streets and not narrow streets with single family homes located on very steep streets. These narrow roads serve as collector arterials, but are in no way equal in width or slope to roads that would generally serve that purpose. Renton and Cedar and the streets nearest the subject site are local residential access streets. In fact,they are substandard streets in both width and slope angle. Five hundred additional trips per day is a substantial impact on the homes along the route from the subject site to the downtown area. The public interest sought to be served by approving a plat is not solely served by providing additional housing that meets density standards and growth management standards that do not consider the neighborhood characteristics, and particularly the street characteristics. The public interest is served when one balances density with the impacts of development on other homes and their residents. Engineering design standards to not measure or balance these impacts. They clinically decide that a certain pavement width is adequate to accommodate any additional 500 trips per day,without weighing the affects on adjacent residents. The number of trips will balloon from approximately 2,000 trips per day to 2,500 on Renton and Cedar. Similarly,engineering values on sight distance over the crest of a hill cannot discount the neighbors evidence of"near-miss" accidents as vehicles attempt to avoid each other when negotiating the steep, narrow streets. The engineering numbers do not necessarily account for slowed reaction time of elderly drivers or the impatience of teenage drivers. Heritage Renton Hill ' Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 27 Therefore, it seems that balancing the demands of growth management with the impacts on the residents along the commute route requires reducing the scale or scope of the project and the density of that project. The Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan both provide a range. While it has been generally the case that the density should be as great as possible to meet the housing demands,there may be appropriate times when that density should be reduced modestly to effectuate a balancing of interests. While any reduction will be modest,it still would help to ameliorate the impacts on the existing community. Scaling the plat back to 50 homes would provide a density of 6.02 dwelling units per acre. This falls within the permissible range of 5 to 8 found in the regulations but reduces the impacts. There would be approximately 50 less vehicle trips and while,not a substantial amount, it would go to lessen the impacts on the residential homes along the route and reduce the potential for vehicle conflicts somewhat. Reducing the density of this plat will reduce the untoward impacts on the existing residents. 2. The applicant will probably be heard to argue that the SEPA review did not warrant this reduction and that no significant impacts having more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment were found. "Significance" in terms of SEPA and whether it amounts to EIS threshold "significance" is entirely different than the localized but very consequential impacts of 500 to 600 additional vehicle trips on a local,residential street. Just because an issue is not so large or significant to trigger the need for EIS preparation does not mean it does have an impact which should not be mitigated when determining whether a plat serves the public use and interest. In this case,the additional traffic vis a vis the streets that would serve this traffic demand a density reduction. 3. The applicant could choose to implement such a reduction by either maintaining the general lot size and increasing the open space and secondarily preserving additional trees or by modestly increasing the lot sizes of the remaining 50 lots. Rather then specify the method,the recommendation would be to allow the applicant flexibility in this redesign. 4. In general,with the proposed density reduction,the proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. It does provide additional housing choices in an area that can be adequately served by water and sewer and to a lesser extent,the steep narrow roads of Renton Hill. The plat is somewhat isolated from surrounding development and buffers between the subject site and adjacent properties have been provided. 5. The plans show that site can deal with its storm water runoff. As noted, it can be served by City water and sewer. 6. It would appear that there is a remote potential for instability due to the underlying coal workings. There remains the potential to discover overgrown or ineffectively sealed off shafts. The applicant will be required to follow the procedures outlined in the geotechnical reports to develop the site and home foundations. The recommendation of staff for a hold harmless agreement seems reasonable in the event a unforeseen settlement occurs in the future. Potential residents should be given adequate notice that their is some potential for a coal mine subsidence to occur. 7. The proposed layout appears reasonable. In most cases where "interior" lots would be accessed by easement or private roads or pipe stems,these lots are not sandwiched into compounds surrounded on Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 28 four side by other homes. A number of these lots are located on the pipeline or at the open space edges of this site. 8. The ERC imposed conditions to avoid exacerbating drainage problems down stream and to avoid erosion. Storm water will be contained and diverted to avoid excessive flows. The development to R-8 density standards and the need to create building pads and streets means that most of the vegetation • will be removed from the subject site. 9. The proposed plat will provide additional housing choices in an area in which urban services are provided or can reasonably be provided. 10. Development of the site will introduce additional noise and population. 11. The plat provides reasonably rectangular lots and lots that meet the dimensional requirements of code. The open space between lots along the pipeline road does appear to be a potential maintenance problem, particularly with access to the pipeline road roundabout or circuitous from the main plat. These open space parcels should be absorbed into the adjacent lots. 12. The other open space parcels should be restricted by language on the face of the plat that preserves their open space characteristics and precludes selling them off for development in the future. 13. The plat will have its main access to a street which appears capable of providing a safe controlled intersection with appropriate sight and stopping distances. There will be a need to provide assurance that the Seattle pipeline road can be used for emergency access. 14. As a final recommendation,this office would recommend to the City Council that it explore providing the primary access to this plat from the pipeline road with a gated access to the remainder of Renton Hill. If such access could be granted,the narrow and steep streets would not be a issue and the plat could be built to full density. This office was not fully permitted to explore whether this was at all possible. This office only has anecdotal evidence that Seattle, at one time,permitted unobstructed access to Renton Hill from the east. This office does not suggest a full opening but again,recommends that primary access to this plat might be from the east with a gated emergency access at SE 7th Court to prevent through traffic movements. 15. In conclusion,the proposed preliminary plat should be approved by the City Council subject to the conditions noted below. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat should be reduced from 57 to 50 single family lots with a density of 6.02 dwelling units per acre. This falls within the permissible range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. 2. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 29 3. The plat shall contain language acceptable to the City Attorney regarding the recreational and open space respectively and precluding development of them. 4. All landscape tract areas, with the exception of the 5,402 sf tract located at the development entry,the 3,042 sf private"park", and the landscape area abutting the stormwater tract, shall be incorporated into lots already proposed within the plat. No additional building lots are to be created. A revised plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division prior to receiving construction permits. 5. Commonly held open space areas shall be enhanced,prior to occupancy, with landscaping including mixed deciduous and evergreen trees and plantings of native shrubs and groundcover. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Development Services Department for approval. 6. A Hold Harmless Agreement shall be recorded that indemnifies the City of Renton from any damage resulting from subsidence that may occur due to previous subsurface mining activities. 7. The applicant will have to secure in writing permission to use the Seattle pipeline road for emergency access. 8. The homeowners would be required to maintain the open space tracts at the entrance and the park area. ORDERED THIS 25th day of January, 2001. "1-1-(1_ V4:::)LAK- FRED J. KA 11 AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January,2001 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Jennifer Steig Sharon Herman 1055 S. Grady Way Peterson Consulting Engineering 711 Jones Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Renton, WA 98055 Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Elizabeth Higgins John Nelson Mike Fulfer 1055 S Grady Way Peterson Consulting Engineering 1729 SE 7th Ct. • Renton, WA 98055 4030 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Renton, WA 98055 Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Kayren Kittrick Becky Lamke Bently Oaks 1055 S Grady Way 415 Cedar Avenue S 1321 S 7th Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Heritage Renton Hill - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 30 Ruth Larson Mark Mehlhaff Doug Brandt 714 High Avenue S 532 Grand Avenue S 610 Renton Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Ann M. Gygi Nancy Liston Mark Johnson Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson 1518 Beacon Way S 316 Renton Avenue S 500 Galland Building Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 1221 Second Avenue Ryan Fike John Giuliani Dana Calhoun Bennett Development 1400 S 7th Street 433 Cedar Avenue S 9 Lake Bellevue Dr., Suite 100-A Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98005 Larry Hobbs Quentin Ellis Bill Collins Transportation Planning& 715 High Avenue S 420 Cedar Avenue S Engineering,Inc. Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 2223 112th Avenue NE, Suite 101 Bellevue,WA 98004 Mark McGinnis Wendy Fulfer Rosemary Grassi Geotech Consultants 1729 SE 7th Ct. 422 Cedar Avenue S 13256 NE 20th St.,#16 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98005 Linda McManus Bait Bennett Jeff Schultek 530 Renton Avenue S 1800 SE 7th Ct. 613 Grant Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 This report was mailed to other Parties of Record. A complete list of the Parties of Record is available in the Hearing Examiner's office. TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January, 2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Heritage Renton Hill Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25,2001 Page 31 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,February 8,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ismiimmilmilimmil SEC. 20, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., W.M. ETERSON - I - i_ J T % ? N I Iz ' ► _ RPOBrWAY• 4030 Lake Washington RINTON HILL1 ,„.....s .. � � Bii:Ekland. E., A 98030 WA 98033 s 2Re sr ''t el(425)827-5874 \ :s5:0 1 ax(425)82____.� 2-7216 ��� >/\ I \\ \ `y ' `\ '� s Im sr3JTE-I I_� \ cr� y ji \ I\- '' Imo`__,..� ��\ A ' MAY R,i>� \IJ rlfF �7 IY\ / C29' I 1 \ \ we N ' 13T�. 7TH SIT.. % _L S:B86'r 829.JI' �� \ \� PHIUP �..I -t1--�'% © I PARK ' �� 4f�::37 JB ARNOLD �, l •srarNWATm II IL I- -I w ��®0� �ri:M Q Q. sue, `' W ', 0 200' I I - I--�2 0 - 1 I I t I ����O ROD H' 03/` y VICINITY MAP: • �� �- - -O ��m�® . NOT TO SCALE • OICC I II I 27 �,u, I. I -_I___J \ '-- c ri • � Ell 4.�. GENERAL NOTES: • -I f... :. I � 1^-- l =r \� �' '® ,_,I I ONNEN: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT - W J I NUMBER DELTA: • . RADIUS LENGTH Lis l54'1�.,,7 ' L- I__ 300 SW.718 I RENTON,WASHMGTON 98035 Cl 1J428 40" 25.00' 56.68' I \''',.:. ��• :_� C2 ( 282712" 125.00' 62.08' 22 _ = oEwta at BEN DEVELOPMENT I I_JJ I I \'`'��'© SUITE TOO A 4/5 MALT '-�\ /� `[," BEL(EW&WA90NGIEN 95005 .� v4• Ne .{`1-1 l (IXN ACT RYAN FKE 9-6308 '1 I I _ I `_ I I -\ ��56 . K ENGINEER: PETERSQV CONSULTING ENGINEERS4030 LAKE m '' ''7 '-7 `•�I�� ��.•� ����J„ •• .SUITE 200 WASHINGTLN BLL9 ME I 1 1 I // /\ �\ KIRK(ANO.WA9RNGTON 980J.r i k--I---I \ \ \ ` �, (423)827-5874 6 �// \ \ \--i CONTACT:.E7 12707 siva P.E KEY MAP 37RA-TOR: MEAD OLAUN&ASSOCIATES BOX 289 SCALE 1%700' PX000INNLLE WAS INGTON 98072 , (425)486-1252 1 BENCHMARKS/DATUM: CONTACT:EDWARO ANDERSON,P.L.S. TOTAL AREA:(+/-) Ia35 ACRES(CROSS) - h CI BENCHMARKS CITY OF RENTON/415-NI/4 COR.SEC.20-23-5 TOTAL AREA R.aW. 2.04 ACRES •l OF TH &JONES AVE.BRASS DISC&'Y.80't E OFAa a a.a a a a 1<14 IHE x • ELEVATION..J41.34' NET AREA 6J7 ACRES Y CITY O'RENTON pro TOTAL LOTS 57 RESIDENTIAL LOTS A STOO CASED LCNC MON NiM I/1'BRASS FIN,11'3 S OF DIE INT14 OF MAXPROJECT MANAGER: ALLOWABLE DENSER a0O OU/ALR£ � a 77N ST&RENTON AVE S ELEVATION_303.80' PROPOSED DENSITY.' 6.86 DU/ACRE GDQ ESpp y •• DATUM: NAND ea(OTT OF RENTOW) ZONING: R-8,URBAN RESIDENTIAL • OWED .0 SIDG PROPOSED USE: SINGLE-FAY DETACHED - DA7E I/I0/07 MIL LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRE NAME PPINER25 VOW UM 51N0.f-FAM2Y,OCIAf7lED THAT PORTION OF ME NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORINMEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY: FIELD SURVEYED BY MEAD GLMAN&ASSOCIATES OUARIER.OF SECTION 20, TONNSMP 2J NORTH.RANGE 5 EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. • DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS IOPPCRAPHT7 FIELD SURVEYED BY NEAR dLMAN&AAOpATES COMNENaNG AT THE NORnmesr CORNER OF SAID SUBDINSON,SAID PORT BONG THE TRUE PANT V,R OF BEGINNING THENCE SOUTH 8956'Jr EAST ALONG DIE NORTHERLY(NITS OF SAID SUBaNSiON UTILITIES/PURVEYORS: � A DISTANCE OF 92567 FEET TO.THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SU8DINSKN: THENCE SOITN - ot y` >• 0143:18',NEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LIMITS of SAID SUBDINS70N A DISTANCE OF 818.3J FEET: w `;'`• �; MERLE SOUTH 77173'I2'NEST A.DISTANCE OF 109.18 FEET 10 A POINT aN THE NORTHEASTERLY SENOR/WA TER• Ott OF RENTON MARGIN OF THE.OTY OF SEATTLE'S CEDAR RIVER PIPELINE RIONT OF WAD THENCE NORTH 44' 20'15'NEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE O'T148.20 FEET TO A PANT ON THE STORM DRAINAGE: OTT of RENam NESIERLY.LIMITS OF SAID SUBONNOIV,•.THENCE NORTH 014620'EAST ALONG SAKI NEST RLY LIMITS A DISTANCE'(F 3514 FEET TO ME TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CAS/PONER: PUOET SOUND&ENERGY -..A. •' � :.. LOT:AREA'S(LISTED IN SQUARE FEET) TELEPHONE: US NEST ..ft% I. 5.990 IS. 5.482 25. 4,750 37. 5,527 49. 4,750 CARD AT&T I MIRES:9/0/00 5.353 14. 4,865• 26. 1,730 414 5.300 SR 1,719 TIRE.DISTRICT: On'OF RENTON STAMP NOT VAUD ' J 4,875 15. 4.750 27. 4.750 J9. 5,500 51. 5.825 • 4. 4,623 16. 4,750 26 4.750 40. 3.500 32. 3.863 UNLESS SIGNED ANDDA= 5 4.301 17. 6.090 29. 4,730 11. S,S00 5.1 I,750 SCHOOL DISIR'CT.• RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT/40J 6. 6557 16 7.554 Ja 4.750 42. 5.500 54. 4.750 7. 5,799 79, AJ19 JI. 4.754 41 5,500 55. 4.730 • "5t"JN TLHERM-0021 8. 5.44J act Axe 22. 4.946 44, 5,500 55. 4,731 9. 4,750 21. 5.000 .33. 6.121 45. 4,750 57. 6.660 Ia 4.750 22. 5000 34. 5,349 46 4.750 1,750 aOZT NUMBER II. 4,730 21 4.837 JJ, 6.905 7. ,�/ 12. 0625 24. 4,750 36. 7.406 148. 4,750 /OF 4 .V • iti - —�. ��__ • �� : . CD • _ CAR R— - N -13P OA I•C* : 16> ° • — --- - "� by i ..___ :. . • .. ... -cy= \p RE----. . 11 . CDC�J P- . :� CAR pr. . ..\ _..1 • . , • �: _ -.. r\ - • -:: RC(P) oo�_ 1' °° • \ i 1 ' ._ r .. . p._fr_ili _if... a5t: ,i.,..••- — . ___ _____ .fir++_ i. • _T ----V,-*F- e". 's)),R-8 fl • •LC/„ ��\�frf \ n I I :: . ___..: ...9 .11__ .703c4.11.. ___A) _._... ..,=5:c>C1.1-. - 1 1 g .. •i- Li_ ---r:-. .r_n". ti .‘ ; .7: -74 A-fr. . 0 CA /.•••••-„,...... EDD! 0 (24 .: --ro on_ _. : ......T---CL ..11/1kaek....- -1.1',:i-•• \' t I ----- ---- . .• -„„........ -,s! . _E . ,,......,.....-- _ ....---- • .......„:„... ....„ .. ..... . ..... _ ... ,..„ .....--- ........„ ....... T------, .- . 1-1--, 1 -__T_ - .______._____ „---1---- . .....- . .. ___- _...;:_.--,,,_---.....,... _. .....--- _ • -_. _,........ ____ ---- ! _____________----- ... . -_,.. _ ___________-- \ r-...-, • \ . -............... ____.____,_._,. R-8 r _ (ON. • OW I C N �� -�"f. `_ _RM-I__ ..- -R�g-=- _____._.....— _— ���� s , • `--- �`S�-1116th JP�T 1.... \ \ 4. of, .12 . 6/ . ;� rv . ..., 17 7-- ai y 1 . . ,„,:.,. / )--.--. \a' -) 7 I r-.T .-� - f , n z a r4 11l G.- MA? • • fi _._I ,._a mnc 1..40' —". CITY rm. HERBAGE RENTON HILL rA/3/00 AN— RENT( NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL HAP IARM90N - MPR i sfoo ram• W^W Z � b. •_�7 �' 1 -a _ \ A• ; 1- 1 \\�%\rrrT- rr �,rTTrTT7��1 I I \ k1 1 1- '� 1 IT-Ti 1.I I I I I I Trill I I I ``yr-� I _a__ I I I I� `EL F=I I I I 11 I I I 1 1 I 11 I- k1L_L_inabY� 4- 11J'LLLL1111JJ.J- / '. MAN AYE• / ,�� / q� 1 // — / IA10I I / 2'�_' L —__�------, .. r-1--y ' MEL AVE I . / / / / i I 1 , I„r-rrrT-r-r-r- 177TTTTT-111 / / e I.1 I'. 1 1 1 I I I ..I I I I I I I I I I I� / Y / III IIIII ,•rrrrrr�7���3f-�ttt+t t-f t-I� I'I I I I I I I I I I I:1. I I.I I I I 14�1. / '�z,€ ---- C07MAYEI 1JL_J_IJJ1_J LLL�2_1JJ LLLL1111J..t-J4"a —1 rr�T-r7-r-I-1-1 r-rr-- / �� / I I I I I I I' I I I I I ra r�-r�-rn-'�7TT��r1�-r -r 1-- • / d / I I I I I I I I I I 1' I I a I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 111 1 1 I I I �� / / 11 ors+-I--1-L-i-,--I 1-T'-r, 1--1-•I--1--1--1-+-11 +'''-II I I I t). / / I I 1 1 I I I I, I I I_ I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I r--1- l+y°'�f f _ / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 •A-'- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 +� 1 / //-7 J L1_t 1. i__J, LJ- ..�•�J-1J_j_J.J_11-J-�J02 L11L- / / I r-I-v1--I rmTT-7-r111-1' rTI11;:`M— rrr-F—rT--r-7 -r-r-rrrr- `1-1 1 1 I---1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1=:cy III 1 1 1 1 I I,- J /T 1 1 1 1 1 1 / // JTT 1-1 I I-1 1r CI IJJ II I-li T.i �'r�-tt-�{�,77- �i i i i ri �__J L_lt1_J m 1_LIJ_.J_J' L_LL_LILLL_L_L - C� 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 r--T--T-ram ORAMT AYE• �ii'l \ L� L 1LJ-LL11_. tM � r-TT-rrT-,I r-��TTrI-I-I�-� -\ � >� 11 i -I_I I•I I,� I I 1 I 4--I PC=__1 11 1 11 1 IJ' '�\\\�� I 1 Nr i=I=-I--Iz�LLL_Ll_LLJ_J g1--d.11LLJJ.y <\\` \ / r r-r-T-rT-r-I 11='4T1Trr t \ \\ 011 I I .1 I I I 11---Hilly 's \\ \ \ /i I I L1_1__1_-J y \ \\ \ I 11 LJ_LMA��L1_LJ; L_1LLly�./ C-LiLiL , I III I I I I LJ I I I I I I I I I 1. 1 ,/4*/9 I I No ICI I if LJ_1J_1J_J 11 I I I I 1 III �$YA I_J I I I 01 I 1 I I t 1 1-ITT 1-T I-1-T-1 Ile. :�4t;41 I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I t 1 1 I )1) /�a --1 I L__J \\ I 1 LJ_1_L1_I_1_LLLL1_LJ_1_L/ I\. I1 I I I I \ I �' .!ONCE AY.a '3=\Y- L-- -- /II. J 1 J 1 / \ \ q. '�'�� O) ' '-- r / \ \\ \ - Y�r/9X P gi 4 0 �00 ICE Km .../ / Aw / 1\ \\ \ AQ\ / C®� ®® �.,/ I / { /.#// 1 \i /�� �SIIIiIi% 1\ . / { /..// \ li / \c.) \��n-rm Ds V-.1 //\ / 1 / % / / -,L /Y / /�i/ / \`,_ \;��,� �J\ -��L��Tn--1--------"rExPArt coA.------// / i , % •• \ Via$ \�.--\v 1 c.r 7-4�/' I /f---------- / / 1 "�� \ 11 \ `r� [L F`�n'-</�� % // j/i/ \I . \\ y \\a L— 4-LC 1--, I / / --=- -- / /, / / \ ,,,i ,\ �'<\\ y 1 B 1 � / l / ! '--+'/ \ ICt~ \,j -`J\ / y r '-� ~/` ii//, -- / o�ri��J� I i '// Z. f i \t1 / / // -- t.' /\\ \ \ -•\\',. - / / // / / / • / ' s \\ �C- i-, I i l i /� /= /i�' // TF /i 1 \�"1 {�' a^\ I I I I I F'-8.j / / / \ \ \ u{ �ti'1 I' 11 1 L-=-- i / \ i / 1; I - i i / - n \ / 1\ \1 \ Is \ \\ \ 11---i1 . -` - ;T \ 1 _ _ \ a� , I. \\\ ' —1ik. I I ' /) V'N, ,/ \\ ..A\ _�\ \\ `\\\ _ / G Or:. '7 1 p GH LL O / .• I I AVER RUDE \ \\\ \\ \\\ aA . . s;!j iPi�t ,.. . ' r5-r B // TRJMO MIAM I 1 rot.o ..r \\ \ \ '' — — �.C�*�' I "s=n , /4" r + - -_} �r.om,- •!t -f-^m r--t-s?to.IMMIX I 1 fs6E. .. -�-- -_-- ---\'� _ \ .. \ -J' zQ S. TH ST• ). \ �_ it -rI A,-., d / O 0• Q ,- r O r 10 r \`\`\ 2 1 �C" ISi ♦._10' �N4`� R�\��/ i�/ I I i- S�ORMWATER--''�/ 4:``:,�4 V �2 `14 r`- 4.LQ �,79 I Jay• BI I \_\� 1 \\i%\`I i o I /'WI' ?A���\14`\\Q 11 1 i ,' rnACT---- �:\` 1 -- ` 1� •/J /l^J(,�' •J •\i I`R\ \ ::l 5 • • I ' J'I, , \\ 011 'a Q \ , I I I,' . ^�` J,'.' `(/p��) ,o- 'e,- a �1n� OP �1�^/d p `\\` W NUMBER DELTA. RADIUS LENGTH ♦�0� �` .. �`..,- �� , i ,-. `\• \\I- -``Y- - ' '' ;9' ' ` �\ I \ \ a z • ,Or rs42d'40'. •Emo `\�♦6 \ti.\\ pl ` — • - ,,., - i Q mod,„��\ R p.\ , '1 C2 2B2T'r2 11 .\ `� f \ ' , -—_ -,,"Q�\\` '•`{�•A- -� I A. A - �, z • 7 ,,11 •♦♦ :.D .: -— —r-- I ii!! .z�;.. C \•j�T:4�w� W 1 La 1 11 I ,�I' >,\ c1.�`\.� i . 1....\`,`C ,/'Q . a,iia o\ a\ `" '.VG ,,, - I� / ig 0 f /`%Al. I /. \ \ Y r 4 ` . Off.`i v I / n f-� ♦♦ t✓ , \CJ`- Jam• �/Q , \\\I;p le 1 jp �:' , , ♦��• I L/5 '-- \'f' PARK , f \ u / ..:�Ti'^p �;t \\Oh Y , - I`—�--_I , ��S► „ PRACT,`. _ ---�,/ 45 / r 4.p \, r/4B 4,.. 49 ' �4 r_..,\‘ ' pile p "�,,,t ' i I 10 1\s'. , - _ro_• -- r gliie' V-:6 1 41 O� �`I �4a \ 1 ▪ • -- �� ---•- I I .‘111.00.. If/�♦\ qw\�• rr ,,,tt•�� OYlJ ' ' -',c ti.W.'.9t1� ' i, ' /' p\�_ p 0011,,,\y5, -I �• \ ` 4O lV , - ®��\9/ ,.-I n,,,- 7,�A[ > ■! / '►`-i Tar ,er ° (1 Jr`,C FT - gI \ ♦ \�\AI �'N , , Y ,• 5l / 7) gyp, , Atra \ 'Y Q' , / . x' o yr . • ` , `,I •\`:I 1 l(� 1 tt;. , - / •/ cY, rilgv �� •.J� �•� '�, /j Stti \`` ♦�♦ ,,\ \` J r o, .\-•-`;�57_J'��irr ey 4j . 4� 0 �r �► \0, ,itdl a / \5 55 , 4;9,. 5J '11Y•�0 (�� �A I 71.gg h I \� \ d5® •��•' --.y Mori_. _.�, -i Ias,N�.�.fli1_�1j.�,w-' - W 63i.. % \ 1 I� • Q I \. ♦� \¢i - A7_-- sap 'i/' -.Q .. w1\ �� / ' '/ •� \\ \` y CITT Of atMfpa ...Al %% (\} - �_ •j .� , \ \ i-- iT,� I- J W rm r exxmo n/xx ) kph `. � - _ d /l0 ���i - i• I / \ \ (I ar o I d a ° '�c:°r ti�=- - ,me ,9�0 ,rQ i2 1 �.gi� / \ i " ,,._4�._ O_ (21-- ` \ -off,"Q � ,,/ I b ```_'ti \\\ / ,'( • s ; ; f • I \.1 ��' .rA IQ --es- ••--, / / ei ",��`'7:2,5:- e"'`Q " I / I ;`sue . /'�I_ , qom ,.. IS ',�° �I; ITGN I!ap6Ei % r\ I- NOTE• \\ ' ,111,♦• • ! r 'O0 /� I Q o I -' v ."I '",m'o I 1 \. I ENTIRE SITE TO BE CLEARED. \\ \\ '-�,g'`\ \---� , 1 _ /wq O \ 1 I I R a a a I NOTE LJ�,/ �� n , .'c/ •��--� - i� -'1, 11, •.1 I 1 ` 7 ' L. APPLICANT RETAINS THE Rl(ifT - w , ' , -' ,,- ` ,>�'4 1 .� I cc 1- 7 , f 'r.e - . I--I TO SASE ADDI RONAL TREES O IP SITE CONDITNNTS PERMIT. c-- 1�♦L%S r' ♦- / ' 4 `•3�x I - i 3 '- TRACT -��' I O I I `\ ��1 -'Ifi _° Q I I - I $ a TREE LEGEND N,-�♦. "' '\0 -- ' (\'. . ' '`�O/ rr.'' . `- I I w �$ a I I. fIli ♦ N... ' \- / \S�� •` I °j n HOCK \ , "ram "N\ ���,_ \ IA�22• ' I i �- n 4 ��- f I I I I . COMMA AS MOIEU \-' A.t' q.) `.I f /a ' i _ __ o E•-w't-ro ruaoucvs \ - . .\.-. -"\ v i,;J P1+� I 1 I .- . WANWAL IR[[Oa aus¢a I (� lY-TP Mnto arcawous ,...- "�.`` \ `.I 'O I I 4 r' % MdNOUAL IR[L ac aus ca ' ♦ \ gyr. I 1 ' , 0 1I1 0 Ta•a LAaua mxo ataovaus \� /`� -. O �/�'�f I'���~ 1 1 , / • ♦ • \ iA I A Irrs0CY0la b' / i I \, 1 .'C --_, \\\ to aH.u.A tr.,.\- ���.��DO! .��r, � iwrto is imc. / 't' , I I �' � \ \ \\\ �,` 1 I I PI �,O. {ii IWKI,.I G 1 1 III \\ \.. �. • ,-'• \ �� r c,•A4 is} oxmoA nrtcnu, 111 -___.tslAum a `!.y'^��\, I w pn, rrJiA,rq• p-.• I -•.•, .. !MX H. F.' \\\ \ \� T I12i'� rl.!`..., r•:I, . ' r ^� nrnva ''•' IOM..A'• .. .• f vex. i1 99.1 \ `.. �\ „\\ -. - a'ii!��.rYA11� C'�_.✓�.�'?�I;. 7 ",earn ;auo.v-� -8or_us^^I II \ u•rcn .---` �`--__� \ ��., k • -\ -`-`I 1 �jt��a ...1 I m ..•.-. ....I ---C. --- /sue=' 'J,/'i , - ___ - r 'w�l `6 0\ \^ �•YT ;; '�. .� / r.�p�...-...�.'- , r O Imi � Al I \\\ a S. TH ST. �`. \aldo.er `` � ITS s ,pAy��� .• �\ / I , r ,^ �\ ; r Y5 I ,J\* Z o I . (L�, 14f�y�t, �' +0, i � '� �r.. I \}M�. `fy l *? _`I! ,. i0� J�1 ' 31rri 3X, .\ \ \ 1 • \I�ij W w NUMBER Dam f F.mti,.ral i♦� �'�y► 1 �\;y,;._.._, !-.' - _ M` \ 1 \\ \\ CE $ • cz aesrrr' IgL7ii - \ •� r58 1 �n /'i : ,.�� " . r' i'L,`l'S -_ `'\ mg 1 . r \ \, 1\"l.1 /' I r... .,, ,, ‘„,‘, , . -- , , \4\ 1 `I '/ i `` �� :� 1 r.. \.; i`r ! '^5 r 146 3111:Vii11:: '/ •\ 48. , 31-' 11\ J i i , 1 lea - f:.z 8B -G \ :\\�` e ' I-n,� ♦ I'I_'i ^,4i•p51i .' / /' I `\ j\ ' ,,• , ICI w,ur.ee I_' \ `11f� \ J ' \\*>_=D71���` /56 55 .34i 3l! r 1 '` poi 11 �' �_1•"_ , 4; I , .--iow..',• ",...-- 4 / \J' '-:r:----72C I'--'1..- _. '1,-._':', it i Ow lir, i i I e I `. qN��� c'•'' //:, > `\ , I i ;"'' f ,. \ \ ) li,,11 �1I, Z o I it E 'r1.r�\. •-:. ,--__- •- `.7%- .rl i Y'f 9 i 113, / Ji' ?. L \\ 7 .. / \\\ \`/ . ♦\ �• _.- ^ ''^ / \-_ i/'' 1It \ 2 �J,,,4 `` \\\ .(\$ f� r • -a I `�`\\��ry ''Jry,"'^p�'Q ' ._..m'�''''''''/ 1 ---�6�+ 'r• `1n,- / / • �,� ALL LOTS TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL `\�� , -' '' r I 1, (,_-01,411 N IIn11=1 1 INFILTRATION SVSIEMS FOR Q�?�:, '.. -_t)' ','16',/15; 1 tJ I ` ./.. �.b n�„ / /`•.` F„ ROOF&DRIVEWAY RUNOFF. ```�\ I. v`` ,`� ; j 1 ! II Tom, I i ;.., 1EE�yrQ ' I "�\` .2,-.-.. is..4,11112,,A t _,, ---e__,, ....-..„....„ r,..; 1 \ I is,' 1 1 T + k e L. CM'G H?:NTDN • �� �) ,� fe I ` �_� --- ..�j I 1- d -I !+lrx... ARNOLD PARR \ ` _ / \�_- ; r , \ 1 I W - 4A 1 `\----22 L3 ` I 1 r • I 1 \ ,-\�+0 ♦. • - - !1 ' 21 I I I • \ I I .ors '`\' � k:--______Sx\ __ —� 1 , ij 7 -I I . ‘, ..i.k.. . . ••••••....‘20(..! \ .........! \ \\\ / i�\\ /I \0 ��.40 \ \\ \ ,\ / '/" ---- `\\__/-16% \\ \\\ \>- \\�//// `, „ CITE.- F RENTON � .. Hearing'Examiner Jesse Tanner Mayor Fred J.Kaufman' November 20,2000 Ryan Fike Bennett Development 9 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100-A Bellevue,WA 98005 Re: Heritage Renton Hill • LUA00-053,PP,ECF • • Dear Mr.Fike:. As you may be aware,a public hearing was begun on November 14,2000. That hearing dealt mainly with an appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's(ERC)State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) determination in the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat(LUA-00-053). In order to accommodate those persons who:could not testify at a later time or date,some testimony regarding the Preliminary Plat was - . taken. There was insufficient time to complete the_hearing on November.14,and the hearing was therefore continued to November 16,2000..It was-"during the-,course of that continued hearing that it became clear that providing only two days notice(November14 to November`l6)of the,continuance did not allow persons who might have;already.;had prior commitments to'attend the second hearing. This office, ' therefore,determined that the hearing,should be continued with additional lead time. The continued hearing will begin at 600 p.m,.on,Tuesduy :December 12,2000. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers on the 7th Floor of;,tle Renton City Hall: The matters relating to the appeal,have been concluded:.The only issues to be discussed at this hearing will be regarding the Preliminary'.;Plat. `. The only testimony and evidence that will,accepted will have to be relevant'and non-repetitious. This office will not entertain redundant testimony,as that adds nothing factual to the record and does not aid in the writing of the necessary findings=and,conclusions.required by City and State law. If this office can be of further assistance;please feel'free to write. • Sincerely, • Fred J.Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:jt • cc: Mayor Jesse-Tanner. Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry'Warren,City Attorney Neil Watts,Development Services Director Elizabeth Higgins Zanetta Fontes . Ann M..Gygi Parties of Record 1055 South Gfady Wa . Renton, Washington:98055 - 425:430-6515 0.1 This'oaoercontains.50%recycled material:20%most consumer” ._ CIT, DF RENTON •.LL ti yi Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman' • November 7,2000 Ruth Larson,President Renton Hill Community Association 714 High Ave S Renton,WA 98055 Dear Appellant: . • This office has received an appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's(ERC) State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination in the Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat (LUA-00-053). The appeal hearing will occur on the same,date and time;as,the original Public Hearing: November 14,2000 at 9:00a.m. in the 7th floor,'City Council Chambers of the Renton City Hall. At that time the various official parties may,make motions and present their respective positions and evidence and call witnesses. The issues on an appeal will probably be more%iimited`than the issues regarding the underlying Preliminary Plat. The hearing regarding the Preliminary„Plat will accept all relevant and non- repetitious testimony after the>SEPA appeal::';: ;- Because of the inherent limitations:due to the timing of the appeal and the scheduled public • hearing,this office will invite any:.additional written conespondence as soon as possible but will accept any documents at the:public hearing itself If this office can be of further assistance;please feel free to:write. •,' Sincerely, Fred J.Kaufm Hearing Examiner . • cc: Mayor Jesse.Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney • Neil Watts,Development Services Director " Elizabeth Higgins Applicant • Parties of Record • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98055.- (425)430-6515 This parer contains 50%'ecvcled`material.20%host consumer • Appeal of Environmental Review Committee from October 17, 2000 CITY OF RENTON Project name: Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat File Number: LUA-00-053, PP, ECF NO V 0 6 2000 File Fee: $75.00 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE The Renton Hill Community Association finds the follow areas subject to question: t S P Criteria source - Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Dated October 17, 2000: Page 2, paragraph 5: Why should a street standards modification be granted that falls below the minimum standard? We have minimum standards, why are they not followed? Page 4, Item 10: What protection is offered to those abutting properties in River Ridge and Falcon Ridge? Page 4, Item 12: Renton Avenue South is now posted no vehicles in excess of 20,000: Why is this posting not recognized? What criteria were used to increase this limit? Page 4, Item 13: What is the Width of the Seattle Public Utilities "Cedar River Pipeline"? Will an emergency access permit be required to be received by the City of Renton before any permits are granted? Page 7, D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impacts: "The site lies near the northwest corner of the upland plain at an elevation of approximately 400 feet above sea level." This statement does not go far enough. Renton Avenue South raises more that 300 feet in less than 4/10 of a mile and all construction vehicles on this project will use this street. The Hearing Examiner statement of 1978 File R- 178=78 "The streets are rather steep and serious questions can be raised concerning traffic safety if too many cars use the streets. Between South 3rd and 7th Streets, Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue average 9.2% and 7.7% slope respectively: Renton Avenue has a short stretch that has a grade in excess of 15% between the same streets. With the grid iron street pattern, a 1 vehicle (and anything which the vehicle might hit) can be in serious trouble should a serious mechanical problem occur such as brake failure". Page 8, Paragraph 5: Regarding the exception—Why? If we have areas that are "protected" and make continued exceptions the Critical Areas Ordinance is of no value and "protects" nothing. Page 9, Paragraph 5: "The conceptual grading plan indicates that approximately 54,974 cubic yards (82,461 tons) of cut material will be created and 19,233 cy (28,850 tons) of fill would be required. This indicates a high number of hauling trips by large trucks will be necessary." At 30 tons per truck with trailer, this equals 3,710.37 hauling trips and 3,710.37 empty trips. This will double if trailers are not used. Renton hill will be paralyzed. These down hill trips half full loads and half empty loads will have no place to Yield to up hill traffic. A truck that has committed to going down hill at 527 Renton Avenue South will not give anyone coming up the hill any place to go. What happens then? You are allowing seven hours per day for this hauling, how many days will it take for 7,420.74 trips? How will you provide for the safety of resident living and accessing their homes on Renton Avenue South? What kind of damage will this many trips do to Renton Avenue South? This issue must be addressed. Mitigation Measures: Page 9,Item 3: Does not address River Ridge abutting property. Air. Page 10, Paragraph 3: The application states that the property will be clear-cut. This ignores the following: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element: VI. VEGETATION, Page 9-10. Policy CD-6.5, CD6.6, and Discussion. NOTE: The objective of this policy is to "preserve vegetation for aesthetic and community character and as a means of safeguarding the environment". Water. Page 10, Paragraph 2: If more than 13 feet of land is removed then the depth required should be from the proposed grade level and down 13 feet. 4.Vegetation: Page 11, Paragraph 1: 92% of the trees would be removed under this statement. The 32 trees that would be preserved will only be preserved "if possible". This does not conform to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element: VI. VEGETATION, Page 9-10. Policy CD-6.5, CD6.6, and 2 Discussion. NOTE: The objective of this policy is to "preserve vegetation for aesthetic and community character and as a means of safeguarding the environment". Again, why have a policy if is not to be adhered to? 4.Vegetation: Page 11, Paragraph 2: Clarification is needed as to who will be responsible for landscaping and when. 4.Animals: Page 11, Paragraph 1: "Wildlife will probably move into the Cedar River Natural Area".... This does not address the solution to the "Deer Population on Renton Hill". It also does not address the protection of the deer and other wildlife. The State of Washington and the Mayor of the City of Renton have stated: "deer are encouraged to relocate to an urban area". The Renton Hill herd have not gotten the message. In the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element— Community Design, Page 9-10, "Discussion: Natural and ornamental vegetation provides wildlife habitat, screens unsightly views, reduces exposure to noise and wind, softens the appearance of developed areas, provides shade, stabilizes soil and assists in the percolation of surface water runoff, and frames view corridors. Appropriate selection of vegetation is critical in the success of its survival and the effectiveness of the intended effect. These policies support the development of landscape standards and maintenance plans, and coordination between landscape plans and drainage systems plans. Landscaping is encouraged along travel corridors and the preservation of significant landscape features such as heritage trees is expressed." Clear-cut and bulldozing completely dismiss this entire policy. Page 12, 8. Land Use. Paragraphs 3 and 4. There was a complete procedural failure on the part of the City of Renton in rezoning this.property. The Renton Hill Community Association has been a group for more than 24 years. I have been its President for more than 18 years and have spoken both before the Renton City Council and the Hearing Examiner in that capacity. As President I have been on the City of Renton's mailing list to Community Organizations for more than 18 years as well as in the Renton Chamber of Commerce list of Organizations. My name and address are on file. When the State made its mandate to rezone, neighborhood meetings were held in many neighborhoods. Not Renton Hill. Page 13, 9. Housing. Paragraph 1. Bennett Homes will not be building these homes. The Home values will have to be stipulated to the Company actually doing construction. 3 Page 13. 10. Aesthetics. Paragraph 1. "....would probably erect fences,..." should be clarified. Will the fences be the same? Will the fences be hit or miss? Will some be wood and some chain link and some have no fence at all? Page 13. 11. Light and Glare. Paragraph 1. "Additional traffic, generated by the proposed development, could increase light on streets throughout the area." "Homes, particularly those adjacent to Phillip Arnold Park, could be impacted by light spillover....". Either the light will or will not have an impact on the neighborhood. Page 13. 12. Recreation. "The applicant has proposed that several landscaped areas or "pocket parks." would be created within the development." Who will create and where will they be created? Page 14. Historic and Cultural Preservation. Paragraph 3. ".....that a potential change would probably not be more than other neighborhoods in the City are experiencing,...." Please name any other neighborhood in Renton that has: The same steep grades as Renton Hill, and the same limited street capacity (Renton Avenue South), and the same limited site distance areas, and the same access restrictions, and Yield to up hill traffic signs, and eight deer, and the same safety issues as Renton Hill. Paragraph 5. "Although the distance between the entry road to the project and the intersection (110') is below the City design guideline for spacing of intersections (150 when possible), traffic operations should be adequate based on low traffic volumes." Where is this measurement from and to? The map scale does not clearly indicate the area measured and does not look to be even 110'. This report does not address the safety issues during and after construction for the residents living in River Ridge. All traffic generated by this development will use the River Ridge access on South 7th Court. "Should be adequate"? Is that now? Is that during construction or just based on after completion? What access will be used and where will construction equipment be parked. When some of the testing on this property was done, access was achieved via the Seattle Water Pipeline Road and equipment parked on this access. What is the plan for all construction vehicles access? 4 Page 15. Fourth Dot. "...S. 7th street is very steep with grades in excess of fifteen percent. The grade in question is 26%. Quite an excess and closed if it is icy or we have snow. Page 15. Seventh Dot. "There is no transit service for residents on Renton Hill, due to the steep grades and narrow lanes." How can it be that streets that are too steep and narrow for transit are o.k. for earth hauling trucks, cement trucks, backhoe carriers, bulldozer carriers and on and on? Page 15, 10th Dot: "No improvements are planned-by the City of Renton for streets on Renton Hill." So where will the fee collected for Transportation Mitigation be spent? Page 15. Paragraph 1. "...construction vehicles in excess 26,000 gvw,. associated with the project..." What will this excess weight do to Renton Avenue South? And how will this affect the mine shaft vent that continues to sink on Renton Avenue South? Page 15. Paragraph 2. Again where will this mitigation be spent? Renton Hill has no marked crosswalks; corner yield signs, limited site distance signs, and only 4 speed limit signs. The North East corner of South 7th turning North on Renton Avenue South, is such that a turn will take all trucks into the oncoming side (South bound) of Renton Avenue South. Page 15 Mitigation Measures: 1. Gross Weight and Numbers of Trips and Road Damage answers. The Renton Hill Community Association does not write the policies of the City of Renton. It is the City of Renton's responsibility to enforce these policies. We ask no more but expect no less. The continued "variance" policy does not protect the Cities residents. This proposal and Environmental Review &not"Provide a'healthy atmosphere'to live and raise families`" as stated in the City of Renton Vision, Mission and Business Plan Goals.. The safety of residents on Renton Hill is greatly jeopardized by even considering the shear numbers of trips required by the removal of cut material and addition of fill material. The City has failed to acknowledge the access hazards and danger this project places on all of Renton Hill's Residents. Ruth Larson, President Renton Hill Community Association 5 roTEs RECEIPT DATE w I •I (0 /00 NO. 0951 • yj SIB RECEIVED FROM ver+I` U rti L' 1 ( A S i U c.. ADDRESS 'II Li P I a K A S" FOR 0-0-04) 0-4 - L tit. P - 0 LI- 0 U c t? ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT.PAID - CHECK j°'P�5- 8 r BALANCE MONEY BV ,�PLI'4�"'•u^^" P' ' ('�R.A. DUE ORDER "L- Q ©1998 r r-ORM®8L8O2 November 4, 2000 CITY OF RENTON The City of Renton NOV 06 2000 Hearing Examiner (.4 RECEIVED Cc: Elizabeth Higgins CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Chief Planner Dear Sir: I have a grave concern about the proposed development proposed for So. 7th Street and Jones Avenue South. The developer has written documentation that they must remove 54,977 cubic yards of material and must return with 19,233 cubic yards of fill. They are proposing to use Renton Avenue South as their only travel route between the hours of 8 AM and 4 PM for hauling and construction delivery purposes. The 54,977 and 19,233 cubic yards equal 74,200 cubic yards. An average truck can carry 14 yards, but with the weight limit posted, a truck will only be able to carryl2 or fewer yards. At one truck load every ten minutes for eight hours, it would take in excess of 110 days to complete the grading and filling before the construction could actually begin. Inasmuch as each truck must return empty, the truck traffic on Renton Avenue South will be doubled. We just had Renton Avenue South paved about 12 years ago and we are concerned that this pavement will be broken by the excessive truck traffic. In addition, the developer does not propose the installation of scales to ensure the trucks are within the posted weight limit. This project will definitely exceed the "local delivery"exception. The secondary issue is having the loaded, down-hill trucks and/or trailers yield to uphill traffic at all times. Friday is garbage pick-up day. With six Waste Management vehicles picking up three different types of refuse / recycling products during the hours of 8 AM to 4 PM, there is bound to be adverse passing conditions because of the 26 foot width of Renton Avenue. As "persons of record," we are contesting any future Environmental Impact Statement that fails to address the traffic, yield, and weight limit issues that must be addressed. I, for one, will not be driving on the sidewalk to allow a downhill truck to pass. I am hoping that the City of Renton consider these issues prior to issuing any kind of permit for this project (including any and all phases). Thank you for considering these issues. William G. and Carol R. Collins 420 Cedar Ave So Renton, WA 98055 October 19, 2000 Mr. Ryan Fike Bennett Development 9 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100-A Bellevue,WA 98005 SUBJECT: Heritage Renton Hill Project No. LUA-00-053,PP,ECF Dear Mr. Fike: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have comp'eted their,review of the subject project.-7 The",04d; .on October 17, 2000,, issued;,a threshold:, Determination ;of. ,Non-Significance-Mitigated with-Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed - Miti'gation Measures-document. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 6, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, on November 14, 2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Preliminary Plat. The applicant or representative(s)of the applicant is required to be-present-at.the_public -hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the_hearing.,If the,Environmental -Deterrnination'is appealed;'the-appeal-will be heard as pSrf of this public hearing: ' ' " ' The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins,AICP Senior Planner cc: __ ,Renton,School-District'#403/Owners Parties;of Record Enclosure dnsmletter « rviv19 b 1 L 1 it:- o LI byn 1. `teab C� �" .1�J-v� , ^�C7 ) 414 14- "Inr,"-T vr --C71‘ rmcn, ")- . -C1?1'1"'5 'L rare' -r1.' "'t -�tl -v G Ate' Cikk. ---14 3 1-tYlpvi ci--0 As-3-1 r46. ‘4,z)A. 4 * a Y 0 r - - - - ------- -- -- -- -- - I I 1 1 I i% ' I I , j I I 1 1 1 1 � I L 1 c • � , .� \ \4--\ , , ? • I I , 1 I I 1 I I I I I i I I I I i I I I i I I , I I I I ; I I 1 I • • STAFF ! City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE: October 17, 2000 Project Name: Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat Applicant: Ryan Fike Bennett Development 9 Lake Bellevue Dr., Suite 100-A Bellevue,WA 98005 File Number: LUA-00-053, PP, ECF Reviewing Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP • I r=r-3 . --1 1 •1\ I ••``T 1 I I I 71 g / _ . __r_..-1 1 r_a_i r--, I L? a♦\ -----------^♦'`?♦ems`♦`\•`•♦i i ri '`Z.\.� —r---i;' �fi $ ..a �-,.., .._. - -- --i,_,I\\ 1 1 .r_:.;•;�� '-, I I �f/' • .Y If: 1'--I 1 ' ' is 1 1 I I - _------li- .✓' I1 I _ 1-1 I♦ I I.1 I • I 1-C i,J I--i--I r.__r•_J r-a %r - ------- - -- -/ Jf•'/r-J. i r ,I .-!E r-i--r-, ��`"- I 1 �• I e I _C_..T 1--J!.E'•:y_• L__a�•t I I I 11 I I•I I II l- l r-- r-L-,1 ,,,w•••• „�1 j I--"--^ �1.-�`\\I { 1 1`.``` I I n 1 i t _3 I -1 '-.'- .- -3 I-----! •d...r I \l I 1 I I I I I R I Z�� LT-� 1 L--,L. t__•r-j`TJ r- -_ ♦ wae\I \\ 1-1 L `. I 1 o p I - 1 I l l F--i F I n,--- -,w,l .. -.6.•yr . 1 I I :I t F n I - I I 111 I: L .. FY I `♦`- 1 1 I ( i t is 1 I L__--J •n.rt _--Rl�'i.�,/I ■■■ . \. ; I 1 ;;c 5� I � 3 -= , -'r==ram♦ = ...9■li\■�rrr O-` - - -,�- - - - - - - _ - - - - 1 I I r- 1 I I 1 1• •L__L_.)`\ ■ ■■�I�I N I I I I/,w ; 1 1 I 1 r--'1 I r--1 1 rr�_-_I 1 1 I r__: ,r-T/"'1 L_Jr-,r--r-H I♦♦♦'' ,A.R�■A� u I A`.}'1'-.4`i'' �..•. JI } l 1 I R. I �!__r---, 1: •--Y_-I..n" RRRR Y I/!C','�7 '(;"I 1 --r--�pr--- _ e__.F_J .`.,`.s+Q::::o . !-,I'-,J \\,r �GT?,,i"7 T-\1+ -J Jy I y`� II L_J I 1 ♦0 11��■■ ♦ I' l�\ T..c-/I\/iTI,YfI�''Y•,y F i�k ) I 'ir--7---Ii�--1 i�i 1r--1--Y-ti O�CGYIY� J'�^f'f1\\ _cE�r /�y V/l l I i I I I•,j�a�' 1 ' y e 1 / 1 r--�--a I--�_���_L_J L_1_J `♦'+. o F-_,n 11 L`-r%•s.cl �'.).iuJl.••�`l''Q-�l l / ( 1 r--y 1 I I ,^ ,•JI .L_1_JJ �G��� ra =7 � :.c- `�i-r-,;\\1\ ,Y�= -- , ?i l.. I Lr ,rT-r-, •••• Q/1� E_S� 'C 1 1 iIJ�L�% '1'+;�,��?- -r t 1111 / r I • 1 1 I I r-T-'r'h--J7J` ♦``1'�^-_ �^ L aa,,♦ VL%�� l',Ip•' 4 -'4. I I c-- r-1 1 .-- . E`'' -!'i.'.''' 1 11;I E ---------- ;\\\<;' .,'. -" Ilk. -----------------�.---- - , I = , 8 ii 41 lei sN, Project Location Map ercrpr.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department F. r. tal Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 2 of 16 Project Description: Bennett Development has proposed subdivision of an approximately 450,846 sf (10.35 acre) property into 57 lots suitable for detached, single family houses. Lots would range in size from 4,504 sf to 8,318 sf. The average lot size would be approximately 5,350 sf. The triangular-shaped property is located on Renton Hill, southeast of the intersection of Beacon Way South with SE 7th Court,Jones Avenue South, and South 7th Street. Although Renton Hill is a well established neighborhood, land abutting the proposed project to the north has been developed fairly recently into the"River Ridge," eleven- lot, subdivision. "Falcon Ridge,"a large (80 lots)subdivision, lies to the southeast. Philip Arnold Park, a developed park in the City of Renton park system, is adjacent to the southwest. The Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement,which is used occasionally for overflow parking from the park, separates the park from the proposed development property. The property is in a Residential 8 (R-8)Zone, which requires/allows between 5.0 and 8.0 dwelling units per net acre (du/a). Approximately 88,862.4 sf (2.04 acre) of the site would be public right-of-ways and therefore is deducted from the gross square footage of the site for density calculations. The net site area is approximately 361,983.6 sf (8.31 acre),therefore the density would be 5.5 du/a. Access would be from a new public street that would intersect with SE 7th Court, in the River Ridge development.The new street would terminate in a cul-de-sac. An emergency-only access would connect the cul-de-sac with the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement. A modification from street standards has been requested to reduce the width of the public right-of-way from 50 feet to 42 feet. ` )/ There are no existing structures on the site. Approxi 54,974 cubic yards of l�1 topsoil would be cut on the site, with approximately"19,233 ubic yards of fill material /� being replaced following excavation. The project requires Environmental Review, Preliminary Plat approval by the Hearing Examiner, and administrative approval of a reduced public street right-of-way(from 50 to 42 feet wide). Project Location: The project is located on Renton Hill, southeast of the intersection of Beacon Way South with SE 7th Court,Jones Avenue South, and South 7th Street. Exist. Bldg.Area gsf: N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area gsf: N/A Site Area: 450,846 sf(10.35 acre) Total Building Area gsf: N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated. ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department on: al Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM ____tY PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 3 of 16 • B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the responsible officials make the following environmental determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the downslope perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance with the specifications presented in the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements was well as building construction. 2. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in the most recent KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey stormwater across the site. These measures will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements, as well as building construction. 3. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements, as well as building construction. 4. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of Record to the Public Works Inspector for the construction of the civil improvements of the plat. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to recording of the plat. 5. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 9.55 average weekday trips per new single family lot.The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$488.00 per each new single family lot created by the proposed plat. The fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. 7. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee at the rate of$530.76 per each new single family residential lot. The fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. 8. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the geotechnical engineers, Geotech Consultants, Inc., (report dated September 14, 1999), as they pertain to site development and building construction. 9. A note shall be added to the face of the plat, prior to recording, stating that a known potential for ground subsidence exists in the area and that building plans shall be designed in consultation with a structural engineer and shall conform to the recommendations of the Geotech Consultants, Inc., as found in their report dated September 14, 1999. ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department rot: :al Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELI&:_RI'PLAT - LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 4 of 16 • 10. The rear setback at the lot located in the northwest corner of the property(Lot 35 as shown on the plan dated • 8/31/00)shall be twenty-five feet. A note shall be placed on the title of the lot prohibiting building construction f`;.;.within twenty-five feet and clearing within ten feet of the rear property line, as shown on the revised plan submitted by the applicant and dated 8/31/00. v 11. The applicant shall ensure that all construction debris and discarded items are excavated from the site and construction is ceased immediately, followed by notification of the City of Renton Development Services Division within 24 hours, should hazardous material be discovered during said removal. Zo r5t5D 12. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall include a condition that construction vehicles in excess 26,000 gvw, associated with the project, would be prohibited from operating on Renton Hill during am and pm peak traffic hours as identified in the report, "Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat Arnold Property Traffic Impact Analysis, Addendum No. 2,"by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc., dated September 11,2000. 13. The applicant shall obtain an access permit in order to use the Seattle Public Utilities"Cedar River Pipeline Easement"for a secondary, emergency only access._ Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. There is an existing 8"sewer main in SE 7th Court, adjacent to the north side of the proposed plat. The new project can be served by extending an 8"sewer main from this existing main through the proposed subdivision. 2. The conceptual sanitary sewer main shown on the drawing submitted for the formal application appears to be in order. 3. A sewer cleanout will need to be located five feet out from buildings. 4. Separate side sewers will be required for each parcel (no dual sewers). Side sewer lines must have a 2 percent slope. 5. All utility plans must comply with the City of Renton Drafting Standards. 6. Show finished floor elevations on the sewer construction plan sheet. 7. The vertical profile of the sewer main will be required. 8. The project is located in Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. 9. Any new sewer mains are to be separated from water lines by a minimum of 10 feet. There is a 7.5 foot minimum separation from other utilities. 10. Sewer Development Charges of$585.00 per single family residence will be required for this plat. The fee for this project would be$16,380.00. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit for the preliminary plat. Plan Review—Water 1. There is an existing 6"water main in Jones Avenue S, an 8"water main in SE 7th Court, and an 8"water main stub to the north boundary of this parcel. 2. The proposed project is located in the 490 foot water pressure zone. Static water pressure will range from approximately 40 psi at elevation 395 feet to 55 psi at elevation 360 feet. ercrpt.doc 'Ciry'of Renton PB/PW Department i 1 nr :I Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIMitvAiYFLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 Page S of 16 3. Any new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM fire flow and shall be located within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measure along a travel route. Additional fire hydrants will be required as part of this project to meet this criteria. 4. The water main must be a looped system with two separate feeds. The conceptual utility plan needs to be modified to show the second feed to the existing 6"water main in Jones Avenue S. 5. Installation of 8"water mains in the interior streets of the plat to serve the domestic water meters and fire hydrants are required. 6. Connection to the 8"stub along the north property line is required (see plan W=2038). 7. Connection to the existing 6"water main in Jones Avenue S is required (see plan W-1156). The water conceptual utility plan shall be revised to show this connection. 8. Water System Development charges of$850.00 per new single family lot will be required for this. The charge for this plan would be$48,450.00./This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit for the preliminary plat. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A conceptual drainage plan and drainage report was submitted with the preliminary plat application for this project and appears to be in order. 2. Drawings submitted to the City of Renton are to be on 22 inch x 34 inch sheets. The information pertaining to the City of Renton should be removed from the title block of the sheets submitted. 3. Before any construction or development activity occurs, a pre-construction meeting must be held with the City of Renton Development Services Division, Construction Services (425-277-5570). 4. The City of Renton retains the right to restrict the timing of land clearing and tree cutting activities to specific dates and/or seasons when such restrictions may be necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare, or for the protection of the environment. 5. Surface Water System Development charges of$385 per new single family lot will be required for this plat.The fee for this project would be$21,945.00. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit for the preliminary plat. Plan Review—Transportation and Street Improvements 1. All electrical and communication facilities to be underground behind the sidewalk. If right-of-way space is not available,then in a utility easement. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording of the plat. 2. Streets over 700 feet in length are required to have two means of access. 3. Street lighting is required to meet City standards. Minimum lighting level is 6:1 uniformity ratio and 0.2 foot candle level. The street lighting conduit to be located under the sidewalk. 4. The minimum right-of-way width is 42 feet(modified from street standard width of 50 feet). 5. The cul-de-sac is required to have a minimum pavement radius of 45 feet and right-of-way radius of 55 feet. 6. A 5 foot sidewalk at the curb is required 7. Payment of a Transportation Mitigation fee of$75 per new average weekday trip, estimated at 9.55 new trips per single family lot,will be required prior to recording of'the plat. It has been estimated that this 57 lot plat would result in approximately 544.35 additional average (weekday)trips. The Transportation Mitigation Fee would be $40,826.25. J Plan Review—General 1. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a registered Civil Engineer. 2. The construction permit application(s) must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department I : n al Review Committee Staff Report • HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 6 of 16 3. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first$100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than$200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits (preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. 4. An easement that meets City standards for ingress,egress, and utilities shall be provided by the applicant to the property abutting the east property boundary at a point within 200 feet of the northeast property corner of the proposed plat. Parks Department Review 1. Payment of a Parks Mitigation fee of$530.76 for each new single family lot will be required prior to recording of the plat. The Parks fee will be$30,253.32./ Building Department Review 1. Demolition permits will be required. Fire Prevention Department Review 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area,the minimum fire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Provide a 20 foot paved secondary emergency access from the cul-de-sac within the development to the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement(Beacon Way SE). This would be an emergency access only and can be gated or chained. 3. All building addresses shall be visible from a public street. 4. A Fire Mitigation fee of$488 is required for all new single family lots. Payment is required prior to recording of the plat. The Fire Mitigation fee for the proposed project would be$27,816.00.v' Property Services Department Review 1. Comments will be provided under separate cover. Development Services Department Review 1. The site is designated Residential Single Family in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The property is zoned Residential 8 (R-8). 3. Densities allowed in the R-8 Zone are 5.0 dwelling units per net acre (du/a) minimum and 8.0 du/a maximum. 4. Minimum lot size in the R-8 Zone is 4500 sf,with minimum width of 50 for interior lots and 60 for corner lots. The minimum permitted lot depth is 65 feet. Lot dimensions must be shown on the final site plan demonstrating that all lots meet these minimums. 5. Heights of buildings in the R-8 Zone are limited to 2 stories, or 30 feet. 6. Required setbacks in the R-8 Zone are 15 feet for houses and 20 feet for attached garages which access from the front when houses front streets created after September 1, 1995, 20 foot rear yard setbacks; 5 foot side yard setbacks for interior lots and 15 feet sideyard setbacks for corner lots. All setbacks are minimums. Setback dimensions should be shown on the construction drawings, but setback lines must be removed prior to recording the final plat. 7. The maximum building coverage in the R-8 Zone is 35 percent for lots over 5,000 sf or 50 percent for lots 5,000 sf or less. 8. Dead end streets cannot exceed 700 feet in length,measured from the edge of the connecting street to the end of the cul-de-sac. 9. Retaining walls in excess of four(4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. ercrpt.doc !-City of Renton P/B/PW Department E zi 21 Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM] ,. , k'PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 7 of 16 )(s.,... . 10. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for(or permission to potentially damage or remove) trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 11. The applicant shall draft and record a maintenance agreement or establish a Homeowners'Association for the maintenance of all common improvements (access and utility easements, rights-of-way, and stormwater facilities). A draft of the document shall be submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to the recording of the preliminary plat. 12. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees,shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree"a found in RMC 4-11-200,"drip line"as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. 13. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources may require a Forest Practices Permit for the conversion of timber land to another use. 14. The applicant should contact Paul Alexander of The King County Department of Transportation, Metro Transportation, Metro Transit Route Facilities at 206-684-1599, regarding Metro's requirements for potential transit service in the area(no service is currently available to Renton Hill). D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth/Geology�L ,` .:� r- f � 1 ) t/- I:;. M = a:- Impacts:The site is located on the Covington Drift Upland, an elevated drift plain in the Puget Sound Lowland geomorphic province. The Puget Sound Lowland is a basin lying between the Cascade and Olympic Mountains and is covered mainly by glacially-deposited sediments. The plain was formed during the last period of continental glaciation that ended approximately 13 500 years ago. The site lies near the northwestern corner of the upland plain at an elevation of approximatel 40 eet above sea level. In Renton,the area is known as "Renton Hill." The soils on the property, as indicated in the S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, King County Area, Renton Quadrangle are Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (6 to 15%) and Indianola loamy fine sand (6 to 15%), which are consistent with the site's glacial history and field tests. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by Geotech Consultants, Inc. ("the geotech"), dated September 14, 1999,for the proposed Preliminary Plat. Subsurface conditions were explored by means of fourteen pit excavations on the property. Material encountered included native topsoil, loose gravelly sand, occasional boulders, loose fill including construction debris, concrete, and asphalt rubble. No groundwater seepage or wet soil was observed during the tests. The report indicates that existing soils were identified as weathered, gravelly sand overlaying dense to very dense, gravelly sand. Loose fill with concrete rubble and other construction debris and household garbage was encountered to a depth of 13 feet below grade on the west portion of the property. Regarding former coal mining activities in the vicinity of the property,the City of Renton Coal Mine Hazards map (RMC 4-3-050.R.3.a(1) i) indicates the area of the property has a"moderate"hazard from abandoned coal mines. The Geologic Structure Map of the Renton Coal Mine, Renton Coal Company(undated), also indicates up to five shafts at levels 6 through 9 crossed the property from north to south. The coal mine hazards are typical of the Renton Hill Area, with the exception that"high"hazards are indicated along the west side of the hill. ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department F --:n? :l Review Committee Staff Report • HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM_, Y PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF • REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 8 of 16 • The geotechnical engineering report, supplemented by information obtained from an Abandoned Mine Assessment, prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc., dated August 16, 1999, indicates that the site is underlain by three deep coal seams. Two of the seams have historic mine workings. The shallowest of these lies approximately 250 to 300 feet beneath the surface. The deeper one is 475 to 765 feet below the surface.These may have been mined into the early 1920s. According to the geotech report,there were no apparent signs of slope instability, or evidence of mines as indicated by air shafts,trenches, or ground subsidence. Hart Crowser's recommendations regarding potential subsidence caused by past coal mining activity and remaining mine shafts were incorporated into the Geotech Consultants report. These recommendations include the following: • The geotechnical engineer should review the construction documents to verify that the recommendations have been incorporated into the design of the project. • All footings should be continuous,with increased steel reinforcement,to span potential isolated subsidence areas and reduce differential settlement. • Post-and-beam construction should be considered to allow for relatively easy releveling in the event of settlement. • Concrete slabs-on-grade should be avoided in favor of floors on joints. • All new construction should include vapor barriers and well-ventilated crawl spaces to mitigate mine gas emissions. • Rigid structural materials, such as concrete and masonry, should be avoided where possible in favor of more flexible materials like steel and timber. • Avoid siding, weather stripping materials, and interior floor and wall coverings that are settlement sensitive. • Plan regular maintenance for weather stripping, utilities, and mechanical systems which may be affected by building movement. In addition,the report further states that, "at the time of earthwork, any areas of fill in structural areas should be thoroughly investigated to verify that they are not underlain by old air shafts or mine openings. Ground subsidence could result in distress or damage to pavements and utilities and periodic maintenance and repair of these should be expected." Due to the potential risk for noticeable differential foundation settlement due to ground subsidence, staff recommends that a note be added to the face of the plat, prior to recording, stating that a known potential for ground subsidence exists in the area and that building plans shall be designed in consultation with a structural engineer and shall conform to the recommendations of the Geotech Consultants, Inc., as found in their report dated September 14, 1999. Although there is no apparent evidence of prior occupation or development of the site, there are signs that grading has taken place in the past. Most notably,there is a"U"shaped cut slope located near the center of the site. A gravel road, apparently abandoned,crosses the southeast portion of the property to the toe of the cut slope. The engineers have speculated that gravel may have been removed from the site at the base of the slope. A 1967 aerial photograph indicates that most of the property was cleared of vegetation and may have been used at that time as a"borrow pit"for extraction of gravel used for the sub-base of Interstate 405, which appears, in the photograph,to be under construction through Renton. Slopes on the property are in excess of 40 percent with a vertical increase of greater than 15 feet. Therefore, they are "protected"under the Critical Areas Ordinance No.4835. The before-mentioned extraction of material from the sloped area of the site may have caused the slopes to be increased to the current grade of 40 percent and more. Based on the fact, as indicated on the topography map,that these slopes are isolated on the site, staff recommends an exception to prohibition of development of protected slopes in the Critical Areas Ordinance be granted so that grading may occur in the protected slope area. This exception may be granted through a modification of the Critical Areas Ordinance for: ;");f:f /S 7"/i.y y cv f ,: ,. -• . '� . . a, .... • . "Grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow reconfiguration of protected slopes created through mineral and natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation..." (RMC 4-3-050.K.2) ercrpt.doc :l Review Committee Staff Report- City of Renton P/B/PW Department F' nr HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM«.�. YPLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 9 of 16 Further indication of former surficial mining activity on the west portion of the property is shown on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, King County Area (Renton Quadrangle, Sheet 11, dated 1970). In addition to grading of the slopes, according to the geotech, some overexcavation may be required to expose competent bearing soils.The geotechnical report recommended that the fill be removed from building areas. Fill soils are not suitable for supporting the loads associated with the proposed development. Foundations in these areas either will need to be overexcavated, or be pile-or pier-supported. The geotechnical report stated that shallow slope movement may occur near the steep slope located at the northeast corner of the property at Lot 35 (as shown on Preliminary Plat plan dated 8/31/00). The property corner is located at the top of an approximately 63%slope that is immediately off site. The geotech recommends setting houses and other occupied structures back from this slope twenty-five feet and not clearing or grading within ten feet. The conceptual grading plan, as submitted, is consistent with these recommendations, in terms of the ten foot setback. The building setback is shown on the conceptual plan at twenty feet. Staff recommends that this setback be increased to twenty- five feet as recommended by Geotech Consultants, Inc., in their report dated September 14, 1999. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to follow all recommendations of Geotech Consultants, Inc., as found in their report dated September 14, 1999. The conceptual grading pla indicates tha approximately 54,974 cubic yards (82,461 tons) of cut material will be /Q created and 19,233 cy(28,850 tons) of fill would be required. This indicates a high number of hauling trips by large k.,. 2 trucks will be necessary. To reduce the impact on local streets, staff has recommended additional restrictions on ' hauling hours, beyond those required by City of Renton codes (see also Transportation section). 2 O!O') The applicant must submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with construction drawings as required by Renton Municipal Code. Staff recommends erosion control methods be in place during site and building construction as a condition of approval of the Preliminary Plat. Such erosion control shall be in place prior to the start of construction. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the geotechnical engineers, Geotech Consultants, Inc., (report dated September 14, 1999), as they pertain to site development and building construction. 2. A note shall be added to the face of the plat, prior to recording, stating that a known potential for ground subsidence exists in the area and that building plans shall be designed in consultation with a structural engineer and shall conform to the recommendations of Geotech Consultants, Inc., as found in their report dated September 14, 1999. 3. The rear setback at the lot located in the northeast corner of the property(Lot 35 on the plan dated 8/31/00) shall 'i;(.4_ be twenty-five feet. A note shall be placed.on the title of the lot, prohibiting building construction within twenty-five feet and clearing within ten feet of the rear property line, as shown on the revised plan submitted by y the applicant and dated 8/31/00. 4. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the downslope perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance with the specifications presented in the KCSWDM. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements was well as building construction. 5. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in the most recent KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey stormwater across the site. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements, as well as building construction. ercrpt.doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department mn. :1 Review Committee Staff Report • HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 10 of 16 • 6. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 7. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of Record to the Public Works Inspector for the construction of the civil improvements of the plat. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to recording of the plat. Nexus: RMC 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations; RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations; SEPA 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some adverse air quality impacts would be associated with the site work, building construction phase of the project, and to a certain extent,with subsequent occupation of homes. Project development impacts include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, and odors from roofing installation, and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and the ' sprinkling of the site as needed. Odor impacts are unavoidable and would be short-term in nature. Post development impacts include vehicle exhaust and the exhaust from heating. Vehicle and construction equipment exhaust, and exhaust from heating sources are controlled by state and federal regulations. The removal of a significant number of trees (see Vegetation, below) may have an effect on air temperature, wind • direction and velocity, and acoustics in the neighborhood of the property from a resulting change in the microclimate and environment. Staff encourages the applicant to preserve as many existing trees as possible in accordance with cr9 RMC 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, 'Tree Preservation: Trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing" in order to reduce potential impacts. .�1 i 71' Pi tilt) L / !) ,j-. • ELF:;r; i.. c . • ( i.r) .., No site specific mitigation for the identified potential impacts are required. ram/`>/ L.. :0-M .- -- f Y—'Mitigation Measures: None required. _ � J) Nexus: Not applicable . 3. Water k) l Impacts: Surface water: There are no known wetlands or surface water bodies on the site, according to the ` •J geotechnical engineers, Geotech Consultants, Inc.,as found in their report dated September 14, 1999. The property is not shown to be in a flood-prone area on FEMA maps. J Ground water:There was no indication of groundwater to a depth of 13 feet, or that problems associated with X groundwater would be encountered, according to the geotechnical engineers, Geotech Consultants, Inc., as found in c,,' their report dated September 14, 1999.The project is located in the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. Stormwater Control: Stormwater flows generated by the proposed development would remain on site temporarily, until pre-development release rates are achieved, Stormwater will be collected in a series of catch basins and routed to a biofiltration swale and infiltration pond. Release will be to a piped system north of the property. Runoff from individual lots would be discharged into infiltration trenches located within each lot. Infiltration discharge systems would be consistent with existing infiltration rates. The applicant has proposed utilizing the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. No mitigation is required. ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department ] An: al Review Committee Staff Report ' . HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM; _Y PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 11 of 16 • Mitigation Measures: None required. • Nexus: Not applicable 4. Vegetationc. - 'A " ` Impacts: Due to soil removal and grading on site, most of the trees and vegetation would be removed. The applicant has provided a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan that indicates approximately 389 evergreen and deciduous trees ,Asliv ould be removed prior to site construction. Approximately 32 trees would be preserved, if possibly o 1 Ornamental residential landscaping would be provided by the developer, house builder, or homeowner in areas Ai?./ cleared of vegetation for site and house construction. I t - i: v-' rr0 1 J # c The applicant has proposed that several landscaped areas or"pocket parks"would be created.These areas total approximately 16,896 sf (0.39 acre). A portion of the stormwater tract would also be preserved as a`landscaped area." The submitted plans indicate that trees would be preserved in these areas if possible. 1 ---- , Mitigation Measures: None required Nexus: Not applicable i 5. Animals }� 1 ) : ; , i Impacts: The area of the proposed project is shown on the City of Renton Wildlife Habitat Map (December 4, 1991) as having a"Forest Habitat." The applicant has indicated that songbirds and deer are known to be on or near the site. ,`0 , Other mammals that adapt easily to urban environments are likely to inhabit the property, such as coyote, raccoon, )'/ ; opossum, squirrel, mice, and rats.The proposed development would have a significant impact on wildlife habitats ,j , located on the property. There has been a continuing reduction in wildlife habitat on Renton Hill as land has been /,R4, :, developed from natural habitat on all sides of the property.Wildlife on the property will probably move into the Cedar i'_ 1' River Natural Area, a 243 acre protected open space abutting the property to the north likelihood, some of the ' 0 above mentioned wildlife would continue to forage for food in the residential community on the property in spite of ;,l ' development. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable 6. Energy and Natural Resources Impacts: The applicant has proposed that natural gas be used to heat homes and both natural gas and electricity would provide additional energy needs. Energy conservation is regulated by the State of Washington Energy Code. The property is mapped on the City of Renton natural resource map as a possible source of sand and/or gravel, in the City's"Critical Area and Resource Lands,"dated March 1, 1992. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department :,n :al Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM.°.a,- ZY PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 12 of 16 7. Environmental Health • Impacts: The applicant submitted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated September 9,2000. This report identified construction debris (wood, plastic piping, pieces of concrete and asphalt, etc.),tires, bottles,furniture, yard waste, and other household items disposed of on the property as being apparently non-hazardous. The construction debris, however,could include asbestos-containing building materials, remnants of lead-based paint, or products containing PCBs. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that would require all construction debris and discarded items to be excavated from the site and construction to cease immediately,followed by notification of the City of Renton Development Services Division within 24 hours, should hazardous material be discovered during removal. A records search did not reveal hazardous conditions or sites near the property. The closest areas of potential contamination are the Pacific Car and Foundry(National Priority List, one mile north) and the Northwest Pipeline (Washington State Department of Ecology confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites,seven-eighths of a mile to the southwest). Neither of these are considered near enough to influence the environment at the project site. In addition to temporary noise and odors associated with construction activities, an increase in traffic noise and sound associated with single family residential neighborhoods can be expected if this project is developed. The applicant has proposed a fifteen foot"vegetative buffer"along the north property line, adjacent to the River Ridge development, • which would somewhat reduce these impacts to that neighborhood. Mitigation Measures:The applicant shall ensure that all construction debris and discarded items are excavated from the site and construction to ceased immediately,followed by notification of the City of Renton Development Services Division within 24 hours, should hazardous material be discovered during said removal. Nexus: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Regulation III,Article 4; Model Toxic Control Act Cleanup Regulation WAC 173-340 8. Land Use Impacts: The property is currently vacant and has not had known development in the past. Aerial photographs indicate the property was covered with low vegetation at least from 1936 to 1946. Clearing of vegetation commenced by 1960. Mining may have occurred around 1967, and cleared land is still shown on the northern portion of the property in 1968 through 1974. By 1980,the northern portion of the property is again covered by low vegetation with more dense vegetation on the remainder of the property. The property is owned by the Renton School District, but declared surplus property several years ago and therefore, is available for development. Property to the north was developed into the River Ridge subdivision in 1994. Falcon Ridge, another single family residential subdivision, developed in 1989, lies to the east and south. A Seattle Public Utilities right-of-way,for the Cedar River pipeline, abuts the property along its west boundary. Philip Arnold Park, a developed City of Renton facility, is adjacent to the west. The proposed development is consistent with the current zoning of the site, Residential 8 (R-8), which requires development of at least five dwelling units per net acre. Net acreage is determined by deducting areas of public and _ private streets. The maximum density allowed in the R-8 Zone is eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, with 57 lots,would have a density of 5.5 dwelling units.per net acre. Development of the property has been envisioned through the comprehensive planning process. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property is Single Family Residential. Therefore,the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. , Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable ercrpt.doc • . City of Renton P/B/PW Department ; •on'. ,al Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIkt _"tY PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 13 of 16 9. Housing Impacts: The property is currently vacant and no housing units would be eliminated due to the development of the property.The applicant has requested approval to subdivide the property into 57 lots suitable for single family residential development. Home values have been estimated by the applicant to be in the"middle income range." No _Tr conditions to reduce or control housing impacts are recommended. Mitigation Measures: None required. A , 'Jc� — Nexus: Not applicable 10. Aesthetics Impacts: The applicant has proposed several pocket parks and landscape areas throughout the proposed development. A fifteen foot"vegetative buffer"has been proposed within the 20 foot rear setback area along the north pr erty line. Properties with rear yards abutting the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline-Easement•would pro a II rect fences, which would change the character of the area facing Philip Arnold Park. No conditions, beyond what the applicant has proposed, are recommended to mitigate impacts of the proposed development on aesthetics. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable 11. Light and Glare ,- ; �) Impacts: The proposed project would generate light from street lights, interior and exterior residential lighting, and vehicle headlights. Additional traffic, generated by the proposed development,could increa_se light on streets throughout the area. Homes, particularly those adjacent to Philip Arnold Park, could be impacted by light spillover from a lighted sport field, parking lot lights, other park lighting, and vehicle headlights from park users. There are no city or state regulations, however, beyond nuisance law,that regulate visual discomfort. Therefore no mitigating measures are recommended. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable 12. Recreation Impacts:The applicant has proposed that several landscaped areas or"pocket parks"would be created within the development.These areas total approxinia ee y 6 896 sf (0.39 acre). These would all be accessible to either community members,from within the development, or the community, from the Seattle Public Utilities easement (depending on the park's location) if they remain unfenced. Their small size, however, will limit there usefulness. Philip Arnold Park, a 10 acre, developed City of Renton park, is located adjacent to the property across the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement. It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of$530.76 per each new single family lot to address these potential impacts.Therefore, payment of a Park Mitigation Fee is recommended as a condition of approval. Payment is required prior to recording the plat. ercrpt.doc - City of Renton PB/PW Department i m; al Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM,o: .<Y PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 14 of 16 Mitigation Measures:The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee at the rate of$530.76 per each new single family residential lot. The fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. Nexus: Park and Recreation Facilities Mitigation Policy and Fee Resolution No. 3082; Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts:The proposed project would be located on Renton Hill, a well-established neighborhood in the City approximately 0.5 square mile in area. The Renton Hill neighborhood is somewhat of an "island"in the center of the City. On the north and east it is isolated from the Cedar River and Maple Valley Highway by steep, wooded slopes. To the west, one must bridge Interstate 405 to access the area (see Transportation, below). Access from the south is limited because the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline easement is closed to through traffic. The neighborhood is characterized by older homes, some dating to the beginning of the century. Newer development has been limited, except for single-lot subdivisions with newer single home construction and River Ridge, an eleven-lot subdivision developed in the 1990's. Due to the closeness of the neighborhood, homes are passed from one generation to another,and several generations of the same family and extended families live in the same neighborhood. , . 71 --I_.,r y,- 41 I! /o'_ ''' ! '.,-rr! .t. ' ` Av.."r '7"/ 4,'v �,, P 16� N, 7"._ 4 While a 57 lot subdivision may not seem large in another context, on Renton Hill it may have a impact on'{he character of the neighborhood. It could be argued, however,that a potential change would probably not be more than other ,9\E neighborhoods in the City are experiencing, particularly since growth is now contained within city boundaries due to the Growth Management Act. The evolution of the Renton Hill neighborhood has been somewhat constrained due to a lack of available land,therefore the development of this project would be a more dramatic change. Mitigation Measures: None required Nexus: N/A 14. Transportation Impacts:The proposed project would be accessed at the only place the property abuts a public street. A new public street into the development would intersect with SE 7th Court,the access road to the River Ridge development. The internal streets would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the south portion of the property. An emergency access road would connect the cul-de-sac with the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study, "Arnold Property Traffic Impact Analysis,"by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc., dated January 27,2000. Subsequently, additional information was requested by staff and the applicant responded by submitting,"Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat Arnold Property Traffic Impact Analysis, Addendum No.2,"by Transportation Planning &Engineering, Inc., dated September 11, 2000. The following information is summarized�from de submitted traffic studies: ; ez-n�,J ii,,ie v'A : }•r r0 • Sight distances at the nearest main intersection, where Beacon Way S, S 7th Street, SE 7th Court, and t"< , •::, Jones Avenue S come together, meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) stopping sight distance requirements because each leg would be stop-sign controlled. j'. . Although the distance between the entry road to the project and the intersection (110') is below the City lc design guideline for spacing of intersections(150'when possible),traffic operations should be adequate, based on low traffic volumes: • Cedar Avenue S is a 27 foot wide,two lane road, with parking on both sides. Through traffic is occasionally reduced to one lane. rt • Renton Avenue S is a 26 foot wide two lane street, with parking prohibited on the west side. ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department I- ri. :al Review Committee Staff Report HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM YPLAT • _=` LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,2000 • Page 15 of 16 • Both Cedar and Renton Avenues are signed for the northbound, downhill traffic to yield to southbound, uphill traffic. • South 7th Street, east of High Avenue S, is a 30 foot wide road, with no curbs or gutters, and a sidewalk only on the south side. Parking is allowed on both sides. • South 7'h Street, west of High Avenue S, is 36 feet wide, with no curbs or gutter, but with sidewalks on � 3'W 01 both sides. Parking is allowed on both sides. • Between Cedar and Renton Avenues, S.71h Street is very steep with grades in excess o'fifteen percent. V` • All intersections studied meet Level of Service (LOS) B or better(the City of Renton requires • ' or -' better at intersections). • Although additional traffic volumes from the proposed project would increase traffic on Renton Hill ��: t' �' 9 P P P 1 by rAV. ,` approximately 25%, Levels of Service would not be impacted. i • There is no transit service for residents on Renton Hill, due to the steep grades and narrow lanes. t ' Aq • There does not appear to be any existing recurring accident problem (accidents reported). ' v.'- • • • There is no appreciable increase in traffic due to usage of Philip Arnold Park(traffic volume counts do not ',.1; vary significantly on a seasonal basis). •— No improvements are planned by the City of Renton for streets on Renton Hill. The City of Renton regulates construction hauling (RMC 4-4-030C.2)so that it must occur only between the hours of 8:30 am'and 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday.'Due to the narrowness of the existing streets, however,staff xs ` recommends that the required Construction Plan Traffic Control Plan (RMC 4-4-030C.1.a) be approved conditionally pon inclusion of a requirement that construction vehicles in excesQ00-g'tw, associated with the project, be prohibited to operate on Renton Hill during am and pm peak traffic,hours as identified by the traffic consultants in their report of September 11, 2000. ,---7—Y -4,% 7 = -' ` ' /�1g It is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 9.55 new average daily trips (weekday)for each new single family residential home. Fifty-seven parcels are proposed, therefore, an estimated 544 trips per day if will be added to the transportation system. The City of Renton has adopted a Transportation Mitigation Fee to address 20 the impacts to the City's transportation system caused by development, including this proposed project. The applicant o 7would need to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable a A"to the project. The fee is estimated to be$40,826.25,and is payable prior to the recording of the plat. C��5 tRO'g;10)9& -.6 /5'1-O f5(6,iu 5 - /_/41 i rL J i/Te D/ �� > Mitiaation Measures: (i 2 Q P . OP 57 dt, . ,Q��,a 4 1 5 , /2,4-0 r 5 l� 1. The Construction Plan traffic control plan shall include a condition that construction vehicles in excess 26,000 gvw, ,),,V associated with the project, would be prohibited from operating on Renton Hill during am and pm peaktraffic hours as identified in the report, "Heritage Renton Hill Preliminary Plat Arnold Property Traffic Impact Analysis, Addendum No. 2," by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc„ dated September 11, 2000. 2. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 9.55 average weekday trips per new single family lot. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. . Nexus: RMC 4-4-030C Construction Standards • 15. Fire Protection Impacts: The proposal would result in the construction of 57 new single family lots. Future residents would potentially have the need for emergency services which would impact the City's Fire Department. Fire Prevention Bureau staff at can serve this opment provided at the e d rovements are • �,\,' appropriate fire access is provided,land Fire Mitigation hFees are paidy .In orrdee to offset the impacts associated with ,� )\ ) new development, all new residential construction is subject to a Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee is calculated on a per lot basis. The current fee is$488.00 per single family lot. The total feet would be$27,816.00 Due to the length of the internal roads, a second access would be required by code. The applicant has proposed an "emergency only"secondary access from the end of the cul-de-sac to the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Pipeline Easement. As a condition of approval,the applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Seattle Public Utilities for the secondary, "emergency only"access. ercrpt.doc ' .City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environr. 21 Review Committee Staff Report r:% „ HERITAGE RENTON HILL PRELIM? r PLAT LUA00-053,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 17,____' • Page 16 of 16 • Mitigation Measures: • 1. The applicant shall pay the Fire Mitigation Fee equal to$488.00 per new single family lot. The Fire Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The applicant shall obtain an access permit in order to use the Seattle Public Utilities"Cedar River Pipeline Easement"for a secondary,"emergency only access". Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No.2913; Environmental (SEPA)Ordinance • E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been Incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. ' Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM November 6,2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ercrpt.doc Lu" oo 4-9 ?/ GHA V� CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING,SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Q� ''� CITY OF RENTON(' PEcERirri ( • 2 Zso `� �;�� �y AUG 12002 'NG ENG`N4-4 RECEIVED ' ECOMOMIC -v,. NFIGHBOP-00. AND STPA ftzGir;PLANNING LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: Elizabeth Hi ins DATE: July 31,2002 Cit of nton-Plannin De artment SENT VIA: U.S. Mail 1055 outh Grad Wa OUR JOB: 7797 enton WA 98055 RE: Heritage Renton Hill LUA00-149/LUA00-153 Quantity Date Description 1 Copy 7/26/02 Revised Horizontal Control Plan For your records. cc: Bill Sherman,Heritage Arnold Associates,LLC(w/enc) Signed: ade,14— .12J Fred Herber,Bennett Development(w/enc) Ben H.Eldridge Ryan Fike,Bennett Development(w/enc) Design Engineer II Arneta Henninger,City of Renton Public Works Department(w/enc) Joel Parsons,Riverton Contractors(w/enc) Troy Climen,Architects Northwest(w/enc) Robert J.Armstrong,Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc. (w/enc) 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX • www.barghausen.com 7797T.033[RJA/ca] CITY OF RENTON garl FEB 0 8 200i RECEIVED Orr),OLERICS,OFFich REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Numbers: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF Dated January 25, 2001 a:1dd j Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Date: February 7, 2001 February 7, 2001 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Request for Reconsideration File Nos.: LUA00-149,AAD and LUA00-053,PP,ECF January 25, 2001 Page 8, #21: "The original plans called for a substantial grade and fill effort...the number of truck trips would probably be reduced to approximately 750 trips. The original estimate would have generated approximately 3,700 trips." The applicant is not going to build or develop this property. This probable reduction of truck trips is not included as a recommendation, and probable is not binding to whoever does develop and build. (Probable: "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur...page 11; 4.c.) The number of trips generated by the construction itself (including but not limited to Cement trucks, Lumber trucks, construction workers daily trips, Sheet rock, roofing, and etc) are not addressed. Page 8, #22: "The fact is, transportation impact analysis including LOS information and sight distance information shows that the existing road system can handle the additional traffic including the additional approximately 50 to 60 vehicle trips that would be generated during the peak hours." The transportation impact analysis did not include sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So., the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include 1 factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety"... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are not included regarding the problem sight area. Page 9, #24: The technical analysis would appear to show that at normal driving sitting position, the view is not significantly impaired. This statement leads to the request to add an addendum to EXH2O, including photographs. This technical analysis is not complete and therefore not accurate. Page 10, #34: While there is no public bus route serving the hill, residents can apparently use a dial-up service for vans. This statement is in error. "Dial-up service is restricted to the disabled and in some circumstances qualified seniors. The senior center will pick-up seniors, twice per week for lunch and to shop at two designated stores. Page 10, #38: "Renton Avenue was checked and it is four inches of asphalt over crushed rock." John Giuliani (see page 18) stated that when Renton Ave was repaved, he personally observed that all the asphalt was removed down to the dirt. New asphalt was placed directly on top of the dirt with no gravel base underneath to anchor it. When the City of Renton checked Renton Ave So, they drilled three holes and found crushed rock. Unfortunately they did not ask Mr. Giuiani where he watched the asphalt placed without any foundation. The sample holes were not in the area Mr. Giuiani observed. It would have taken one phone call to establish the location of the problem. The City's transportation people chose not to call therefore did not locate the problem area. Page 12, #9: The various analyses demonstrate that the LOS will not be substantially changed. The analyses also demonstrate that while there are 2 some constraints due to the steepness of the hill and the narrowness of the roadway, but that the additional traffic can be safely accommodated As with page 8, #22...The transportation impact analysis did not study sight distance on Renton Ave. So. The sight distance mentioned in the report spoke only to the intersection at Beacon Way So./S7th street. LOS was done only at intersections so does not include the 500 block of Renton Ave. So, the location of the sight distance problem. The Transportation Impact Analysis on Page 4 includes the following definition: Level of Service Analysis (LOS): "Conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel times, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety" ... It should be noted that"such as" indicates all these factors have to be looked at and included. There is no indication in the transportation impact analysis that these factors were looked at and they are certainly not included regarding the sight distance area. Page 17, John Nelson: Mr. Nelson stated that as a result of his analysis and actually driving the roads in question, he did not think there is any significant problem with sight distances on the roads in Renton Hill. Mr. Nelson did not include the convergence of traffic in his analysis. His analysis concerned one car. Many Residents of Renton Hill testified to the problems with sight distance on Renton Hill. Surely the testimony of those who deal with the convergence zone on a daily basis should carry more weight than someone who "actually drove the roads in question" a few times and then did analysis on a single vehicle. Please refer to the requested addendum to Exhibit 20. Page 22, Mr. Nelson: ...graphical measurements were made on 7th Avenue from the project site all the way down to Renton Avenue S and Cedar to the bottom of the hill. These were graphical measurements made on the computer. On-the-ground fieldwork was done all the way up Renton Avenue S. The Renton Hill Community Association has requested (no less than twice) that a road engineer make an on site physical determination of 3 grade percent be done at the 500 block of Renton Ave. S. A determination of grade percent using a topographic map does not provide the accuracy required for an exhibit that is given weight in an Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearing. The on-the-ground fieldwork was done only to provide measurement information and line of sight for a single vehicle. Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete. Findings. Page 24, #18: Reconstruction and realignment of I-405 during the last decade provided a second crossing of I-405, and both crossings were elevated and therefore removed the railroad crossing. This statement is in error. The realignment of I-405 did not provide an elevated crossing over the Railroad crossing on Mill Ave. S. The elevation only applies to the crossing of I-405. Daily the Spirit of Washington Dinner train passes thru the Mill Ave. S./Houser Way area at the foot of Renton Hill and blocks access to the Hill (twice for lunch and twice for dinner). Rail deliveries to The Boeing Company, Paccar, and Kenworth are all made on this Railroad track. Page 24-25, #25: Staff noted that the City anticipated an increase in overall traffic of approximately 50 percent, and that the 25 percent increase was reasonable. If the City of Renton Staff is anticipating and increase of 50 % in overall traffic — NO plat or permit should be approved until the Staff makes sure Cities roads are adequate to handle the increase. There should be some accountability to the tax paying residents who are forced to "adjust"to the amount of traffic generated by new housing and those who pass thru the City to get to the County. Inadequate City streets should have been considered at the same time the growth management act was enacted. That the Cities and the Counties did not figure this out at that time doesn't necessarily mean the problem should not be addressed now. Perhaps a building moratorium would give local governments time to resolve this problem. Page 25, #26: The traffic analysis shows that the major intersections serving this site, Main Avenue S and S 4th Street, Houser Way and Mill, Cedar and S3rd and Renton Avenue and S 7th will suffer no degradation in LOS. 4 In view of the fact that #18 on page 24 is in error and that the questions raised in a December 11, 2000 letter written by Keith Moberg ( see paragraph 8) to the Hearing Examiner have not been addressed, this item should be reviewed. Copy of letter attached. Page 25, #28: Staff did suggest that new residents would have to adjust to the conditions of access just as other residents on the hill have adjusted in the past, including other new residents. Adjustment to a problem does not make the problem go away. CONCLUSIONS: In reading the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner in the Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings it becomes clear that the safety issues have not been resolved. Item 14 admits that if access to this project from Puget Drive was granted "the narrow and steeps streets would not be a issue and the plat could be built to full density". The Hearing Examiner has admitted the problem is bad enough to reduce the number of houses built. The Hearing Examiner has not met the traffic requirements. There is no evidence that the reduction of houses built will reduce the impacts. There are no adequate provisions for traffic that would indicate this plat is in the Public Interest. The approval of this development would leave the residents of Renton Hill with a traffic/safety problem that is neither addressed or resolved. RCW 58.17.010 states:..The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; ... (complete text attached) RCW 58.17.110 states:..(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall 5 determine: (a) if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication...(complete text attached) Neither the City or the Hearing Examiner have fulfilled the requirements of the attached RCW's Filed by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson, President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. Renton Wa. 98055 6 LETTER FROM KEITH MOBERG (see para. 8) December 11, 2000 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton I am writing concerning the proposed Bennett Homes development on Renton Hill. I have attended the Bennett Homes informational meeting, Renton Hill Homeowners Assoc. meetings and the Nov. 12, 2000 meeting in your council chambers. While some questions have been answered I have a few of my own. I reside at 627 High Ave. S. less than 2 blocks from the proposed building site. The sheer number of proposed houses and the traffic associated with them has me questioning the safety and capacity of the existing road system. During construction which has been estimated at two years plus, there will be an additional semi trucks and trailers and various heavy equipment. Though you have received many written letters and voice concerns I have my own. As a professional firefighter I respond out of a Station that has over 5,000 runs per year. Time is critical on responses. The steepness of hills like Renton Hill slow extremely heavy vehicles like fire apparatus, trucks and heavy equipment. Due to the unique parking conditions on Renton Ave. S. and Cedar Ave. S. the ability of large vehicles to pass another is impossible. If my house were on fire or a family member was in a medical emergency these delays could be and are deadly. Magnify response times considerably if Renton Fire Department, Station 11 is out of quarters. Who in the City is willing to take responsibility for these delays? My next concern is the traffic light at the bottom of Renton Hill on Mill Ave. So. Presently it allows only three.vehicles to proceed on a green light. A semi-truck and trailer equal the length of three cars. The new stop sign on Mill next to Station 11 and by old City Hall has traffic backed up to the intersection of Mill and Houser. After construction 57 new homes will be added to our hill. That is 9.55 trips per day per house according to your impact statement. 540 trips generated on top of the 200 plus households equals an increase of 25% in homes and traffic on a hill to steep for buses and described as a large cul de sac in a 1978 traffic study. My concern has been and still is the increased traffic on our small neighborhood roads. If.egress for the development was East of the pipeline barrier at Phillip Arnold Park I doubt you would have the problems you have now. Bennett Homes in their first meeting with our Assoc. admitted without the ability to access Renton Hill from the West, they weren't interested in the development. Though the planned development is not popular I realize the right of the School District to sell their property. I would question how the 10 acres was zoned with no one on the hill notified of any zoning change. My solution would be to rezone to larger building lots with fewer homes and have all access come from the East while maintaining the existing road block. With these or similar requirements met I scarcely believe you would have any major complaints. In conclusion Renton Hill is a unique neighborhood unlike any other in the City. The safety and character are prized by every resident. Change is evident but no small community should experience a 25% increase in size and population without the same percentage increase in road improvements and safety considerations. Thank you for your attention. Keith Moberg Presented to the Hearing Examiner during the hearing December 12, 2000, by Ruth Larson. Reference to RCW 58.17.110 (not new material) I would like to dispel some of the myths concerning Renton Hill. We did not oppose the River Ridge development. We welcomed it. None of the houses North of the Seattle water pipeline were on the City sewer system until the River Ridge developer applied for a permit that included a sewer line from this property to a connection on Renton Ave. So.All of the homes North of the pipeline from High Ave. So. Grant Ave. So. and on South 6th were on septic systems. All were old and extremely high maintenance. River • Ridge allowed residents to hookup to the City Sewer System. That also allowed four new homes to be built and three or four more are in the planning stages to be built on the North side of the pipeline. Renton Hill did not oppose the Falcon Ridge development. The original plan of Falcon Ridge called for it's main access from the Seattle pipeline road and the removal of the gate on the pipeline. When the plan was changed to access from Royal Hills Drive, there was nothing to oppose. When Falcon Ridge requested a second gate be placed at the South end of the pipeline road to prevent late night disturbances and illegal activity on the road, Renton Hill absolutely agreed and the gate was installed. The City of Renton seems to have adopted an "oh well" attitude to the increase of 25% more traffic on Renton Hill without acknowledging the 25% loss of safety factor. The City has covered themselves by the statement of possible coal mine problems with a rider on the titles of each property. We will hold the City responsible for any condition caused by this loss of safety. RCW 58.17.110 states (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. We want to know just how Renton Hill resident's interest will be served. The City of Renton television channel 21 has a statement listing the organizational structure. The final statement of this structure states, "Renton Citizens are of course at the top of our organizational chart." We will see. REVISED CODE OF WASHINGION rage i of i RCW 58.17 .010 Purpose. The legislature finds that the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and schoolgrounds and other public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and egress; to provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed subdivisions which conform to zoning standards and local plans and policies; to adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state; and to require uniform monumenting of land subdivisions and conveyancing by accurate legal description. [1981 c 293 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 1.] NOTES: Reviser's note: Throughout this chapter, the phrase "this act" has been changed to "this chapter. " "This act" [1969 ex. s . c 271] also consists of amendments to RCW 58 . 08 . 040 and 58 .24 . 040 and the repeal of RCW 58 . 16. 010 through 58 . 16. 110 . Severability -- 1981 c 293: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. " [1981 c 293 § 16. ] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.010.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE OF WASHINUI'UN rage i or z RCW 58.17 .110 Approval or disapproval of subdivision and dedication -- Factors to be considered -- Conditions for approval -- Finding -- Release from damages. (1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval . Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners. (3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than two acres and the donor has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased individual of good character, the city, town, or county legislative body must adopt the designated name. [1995 c 32 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 52; 1989 c 330 § 3; 1974 ex.s. c 134 § 5; 1969 ex.s. c 271 § 11.] http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%20.../RCW%20%2058%20.%2017%20.110.ht 02/06/2001 REVISED CODE OF WASHINU"IUN rages "1 NOTES: Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 : See RCW 36. 70A. 900 and 36.70A. 901 . • 02/01/2001 G: 1' OF RE,1TC'. //,oa a,P7 FEB 0 8 200•i RECEIVED .A..ERK'S()FFIC Request to add as addendum to Exhibit EXH2O Or given Exhibit status and Numbered Accordingly This request is made because Exhibit EXH2O is incomplete but weight has been given to it in the Findings and Conclusions of the Hearing Examiners Report, Dated January 25, 2001. Submitted by: Renton Hill Community Association February 7, 2001 4r - �tl L. it 'i, February 7, 2001 Heritage Renton Hill Stopping sight distance exhibit Renton Hearing examiners EXH 20 Request for adding the following information as an addendum to EXH2O (or assigning a new exhibit number to this information). Reason for request: This exhibit was not available for review until the hearing and could not be addressed adequately without a reasonable amount of time to study it. This exhibit is incomplete, as it does not include convergence information or measurements. A great deal of weight was given to this exhibit in the determination of the feasibility of this project, we are requesting a review of exhibit EXH 20 and the admission of the enclosed documents to the project file as an addendum. EXH 20 has one vehicle heading North on Renton Ave. S. There is no need for this driver to stop, as there are no cars shown going South on Renton Ave. S. The convergence point of two cars is the critical piece of information missing in EXH 20.The sight distance problem is not great by the time you reach the crest of Renton Ave. S. (where the vehicle in this exhibit is located), it is prior to the crest for drivers coming both up and going down the hill at this location at the same time. On Saturday February 3, 2001, at 2pm, the following people measured sight distance on Renton Ave. S. Bill Collins, Keith Moberg, Bill Larson and Ruth Larson. Starting at the North property line of 531 Renton Ave. S. we marked, with chalk every 10 feet both North and South. The camera was placed on the end of a length of wood 3.50' long and with the wood placed on the roadbed; pictures were taken at 3' 6" height (the eye height used on exhibit EXH 20 plus one inch from the base of the camera to the lens). Keith Moberg held a 14' board marked in one-foot increments. Bill Larson was the photographer, Bill Collins checked location on the down hill side and Ruth Larson checked location on the up hill side. The first picture was taken 20' apart, 10 feet up the hill and 10 feet down the hill. Every 20 feet (10 up and 10 down) a picture was taken. The last picture was at taken at 300 feet apart. Bill Larson at the 3'7"height (with the camera) could not see Keith Moberg at all by 280 feet apart. Keith Moberg is 5' 9" tall. A car at the Keith Moberg location and a car at the Bill Larson location would not see each other. If each were traveling 25 miles per hour per hour, according to exhibit 18, it would take 145 feet each to stop. That is 10 feet each more than available. This is the convergence point. While appreciating the fact that Mr. Nelson is a Civil Engineer and much weight must be given to his statements, if his exhibit is not complete then it should not be considered to contain all of the information needed to make a decision on the sight distance/convergence problem on Renton Ave. So. Please place into the file the photographs presented. We are also submitting two overlays of Exhibit EXH 20. Our position is further clarified by placing an overlay at the 300-foot mark on the far right side of this exhibit, lining up the vehicle on the road line (to the right of the 3% mark). This alters the line of sight a great deal and more clearly shows the problem. You can take this further by placing the second overlay, reversed, on the road line at either the 145' mark and/or the 170' line, using a ruler to indicate line of sight from the drivers perspective . This demonstrates the problem with two vehicles converging. The overlay was not altered in any way, nor was the exhibit. Please place into the file the overlays and copy of EXH 20. Requested by: Renton Hill Community Association Ruth Larson, President Sharon Herman, Officer 714 High Ave. So. Renton Wa, 98055 ''"*. , 11. .:i,_ •-., !,t,'",..., "4 1:7J1 F=•!,.../er:p.., MCOld / Of 5 . . r • • •. . . . .• 2 . . . _ , 4 ' .-...,... j--;-- -: --- m D 0 ! t• r' ..:.. ...., .\ • • -1-1 ,..„:,..,l.,.. '''' .4.1.'' •- . . . - •k: ! , I ..1' . -3] .... .. .., ../.• 1 . ‘.. . '--•ir .-... ,, . I ... ‘ .• : 41 -\. ,,.,•,. ..,. . [ • }. • • •11' ' l' i \ i yi, ';•'--4. A,. - ----- - _ tA 1 N M- / •, , , . . . .• . . . . • • . . i I , . , . . . , , I, .'' ,'"i.• ..i. , 4 i i 1 • I / s• , r \ cr.') . , 2.. • r. V.,.. ' -' ' . •. i .., ..•. ,.. : : - . n '?• ' , . ..7....;...."': . tt,• .• • 4%v , . •1,L.3.6 i . ..• ... . .s...-— .r...... r stiiljl':.:11 1 • c••-•-,... ell. ,,i \I - . • , • . 1 ;I 11",....,,,............ .•,, 44- _ . / -._ . • I• - L . ,. • . - . . , - \ , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . 1...--.--.....r-,....10 I,. --,• ,, . , ==, 0 •- ' .-t1.....,7_. __- ., -t' ti -^‘, 4....AN _LezerK.,.. L-.........,..L i (1` .' 4'. '' '.11 .---..,,.,‘ Ili, - _11 -ji . •. "•••-r• k -41:• :... . .__.. , - - 'I( ....,- , •., • i , I -4,, ..... •••. .#' ,- • . .,. .. " ...%.,. ,. .ii. . 1 •'..1 117 't,4 , -- _.. . _ .. ,_ • N ._ . . .• ... _ .. . :.., .. . ,ir—.7, _ ...,A. ,Si . `-jogir ' " f. iri ,-,, • ?. • s‘ : - . ,r -.....i 404 1' - --,' ,..• , • - . . , ' • - • i In...-. ,...... • _ .... - i o. ''', •. •4. s'•:I , • . I '_ QC?? . . . . if . • N • ..,„,,, • • is... C.::, \ \ M Ott S • • • / ZY ` % 1 `_ _ . - M` , ..__ • 04. -.�•• a ir / 0 Z . ,. • • ! .7—.7-21, , . ..\,.. r 4' - • 1' - 0 00 I T y +. RI. / I ��RI. ',. O .` If}zt '72 . +•'fib b1�•.'it4 ''.•1 4,y.� 4l'y.Z . • . ... . • . ' .• ' .. . :. .. . . , . . . N . 4. . . \ . -A •-,:i --_, ' -. 0 .... • -: 7 Af."."1 -s I t • . • 00 . . .,.. •..• .4 •,. ,o . ...--*., 4.4 •' , II. 4. . . . / . . • '4 . . . . A . . f . . • ' . , . . - 4 . . • --- c ,..,....... _,..r •00 Ar 4 . -0 . ,, ' ' lk. _ , -A r 11 i • , ,... .. .... • .-• 11;1 -t •V ' / •0 0 0 4 ..' .. 0 0 , / 0 ii/P .... ..... . . . . ..., . .. - 8 4° if mAll stt* 1196: a of tr I Kt 41% • .---Z1.° ? * 1111 NO/ room 771/5Kei) t j4,0 4or' .1.MOW c)Eh'4,) 41(220 / .. a. I tir ' • • W/1 • . • . - 4\•.• - _ 9 . 13190 f • 119 '"..--".41111411111411111.1111 .• • 1 . . llI sip .99e01 - Ni? 1.6 � ,� •+, ' P-I 6 ,j I OfV Zo6e:20/ .1 • - H a7 1 li I , r 4 _ if ir3Cill) �• _ - • Please note: the car that is no longer seen at 220' only allows 110' for each Vehicle, stopping distance. From EXH 18: stopping Sight Distance for 25 mph Computed (ft) 138.5-146.5, Rounded for design(ft) 150-150. From AASHTO-Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Please remove EXH 20 and two overlays from the envelope. Place one overlay on EXH 20 with the vehicle placed beneath the bold 300 at the right of the exhibit, lining up the broken line (that indicates the road level) to the right of the —3%. Using a ruler at the eye level of the vehicle, note the site line. Place the second overlay (reversed so the vehicle is going up hill) at the 145' mark, again lining up the broken line. Check the site line with a ruler. This visual is more representative of the convergent area sight distance problem. • oCI s•Z6Z PO N t. ct h _—� . ,' W II 0 0N - �� s•06z '( Ri_s to 0I 1 W® 01 2 � 1 � 1I it 1 (I) N iI 11 ��88z W O III I-- � ii w I x c II Q � � o 11 1Z W s s8zCO U e� QC V) z I—O W •� U� m0 L'IC O II m0 ` -..1--10 II v 6'08Z �1 �z 0 1 iz 1 CI �1 O 1 in 1 HERITAGE RENTON HILL STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT SEC. 20, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., W.M. • to DWN. BY: DATE: JOB NO. i o 4030 Lake Washington ETERSON WBlvd. N.E., Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033 BMD. 12/6/00 HERM-0025 N PCONSULTING Q W Tel(425) 827-5874 CHKD. BY: SCALE: SHEET L N G I N C I R 5 Fax(425) 822-7216 W o JWN VARIES 1 OF 1 C4