HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2023 - Kennydale Gateway - LUA-22-0000111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Kennydale Gateway
Master Plan, Hearing Examiner Site Plan,
Substantial Development Permit and Street
Modification
LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, MOD
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Summary
The Applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a street modification for a mixed-use development
composed of 385 dwelling units and 1,500 of retail space for an apartment complex composed of three
four-story buildings to be located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056. The
applications are approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-67 as identified in the in the staff prepared document entitled “Exhibits” were admitted
into the record during the February 7, 2023 hearing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Lori Obeyesekere, Hensley Lamkin Rachel, Inc., 14881 Quorum Rd, Dallas, TX
75254
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 6:00 pm on February 7, 2023.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The Applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a street
modification for a mixed-use development composed of 385 dwelling units and 1,500 of retail space
for an apartment complex composed of three four story buildings to be located at 4350 Lake
Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056. The subject property is roughly 7.76 acres. The residential
density of the proposal would result in approximately 50 du/ac. In addition, the redevelopment of the
site would include a combination of 201 surface parking stalls and 185 ground level structure parking
within the buildings. The proposal would be constructed in three (3) phases. Access to the mixed -use
development would be provided by a new roundabout constructed off Lake Washington Blvd N at N
43rd St. A portion of development would occur within the 200-foot shoreline zone of May Creek.
The Applicant is also requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-060.F.2 to align with WSDOT’s
I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project improvements at the NE 44th
Street Interchange. An alternate street section has been proposed for the portion of Lake Washington
Blvd N that fronts the Kennydale Gateway project.
The subject site is currently developed with impervious surfaces comprising nearly 82 percent of the
total area, leaving limited existing vegetation. The site was initially developed with five (5) light
industrial buildings along with several smaller structures. Three (3) of the industrial buildings have since
been demolished. Two of the buildings were approved for demolition in 2018 (LUA18-000042, ECF).
The remaining three buildings are constructed of prefabricated steel and concrete slabs and will be
demolished for the proposed project. The site is currently being used by Flatiron-Lane Joint Venture
(FUV) as a temporary field office, laydown yard and a staging area for construction equipment and
materials for the 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project under a Tier II
Temporary Use Permit (LUA19-000318, ECF, TP). The Tier II Temporary Use Permit is set to expire
on April 24, 2025.
4. Surrounding Uses. The site is located approximately 250 feet from the eastern shore of Lake
Washington and on a delta formed by May Creek. The west property line is located along Lake
Washington Blvd N and the east property line is shared with the 1-405 southbound onramp. To the north
is the Quendall Terminals development site and to the north of that is the Seattle Seahawks practice
facility. To the south is the May Creek Greenway and May Creek Trail and to the west across Lake
Washington Boulevard is the Barbee Mill residential development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Adequate
infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. A State Environmental Policy Act
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued after reconsideration for the project on
November 7, 2023 with eight mitigation measures designed to eliminate significant adverse impacts.
Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Compatibility, Structure Placement and Scale. As conditioned, the structure placement and scale
are not expected to create undue adverse impact on the adjacent uses and is designed to protect
privacy and reduce noise for on- and off-site occupants and to maintain compatibility with
existing development and surrounding uses.
The proposed apartment building design includes four-story buildings at approximately 54 feet
in height from the top of the roof to finished grade. The apartment buildings would be some of
the tallest structures in the area; however, the proposed building heights would comply with the
airport overlay, Part 77 horizontal surface height restrictions and would fall within the allowed
10 story height of the COR zone.
The site layout arranges the buildings for internal privacy and noise reduction at the center of
the lot.
The proposal is appropriate for its proposed location. The only single-family development that
is close to the project, the Barbee Mills subdivision, is separated from the project site by Lake
Washington Boulevard and a separated bicycle trail. The remaining surrounding uses are the
vacant land for the future high density, mixed-use development for Quendall Terminals to the
north, I-405 to the west and May Creek Trail Park to the south.
The proposal is also internally compatible and does not create an overconcentration of high
density buildings within the project site. The site plan includes the higher intensity use
(commercial retail) at the project entrance along the public street (Lake Washington Blvd N).
The less intensive uses (residential multi-family and associated uses) are proposed throughout
the remainder of the lot. If all conditions of approval are complied with, the project would
include cohesive transitions between phases with large courtyards, interior roadways, pedestrian
pathways, unique building shapes, and changes to the rooflines to break up the building massing.
These transitions across the development would provide a development pattern that avoids over
scaling and overconcentration of the development in any particular portion of the site.
B. Views/Shoreline Access. No significant obstruction of existing views of natural features are
anticipated, including view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 50 feet. The project site has for years
had five industrial buildings. The remaining two buildings are 22 feet and 20 feet in height
according to the cultural resources report, Ex. 38. To help assess view impacts, the Applicant
submitted photo simulations to its SEPA checklist, Ex. 34, Figures 5-9, depicting how views
would be impacted from four vantage points around the project site. There do not appear to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
any significant views to the shoreline or Mt. Rainier that are blocked by the new development.
The most significant view blockage would appear to be cars travelling on I-405. However, views
are already currently largely blocked by a line of tall trees located along the eastern perimeter of
the project site and the Barbee Mills development located along the Lake Washington shoreline.
Within the project, view corridors would be created to May Creek and Lake Washington.
The Applicant is enhancing public access to the shoreline by creating a trail connection from the
project site to the May Creek Trail.
C. Noise, light and glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or glare impacts.
Lighting Schematic Design Plans (Exhibit 10) were included with the application materials.
According to the Applicant, lighting would be provided to ensure safety and security and meet
standard codes and requirements. The lighting of the overall development is anticipated to be
consistent with the building design and should consider the critical areas, pedestrian pathways,
and vehicular movement throughout the site. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant submit a final lighting plan with the building permit applications that includes detail
sheets of all light fixtures and their supports. Fixtures and supports shall be pedestrian scaled
and consistent with the design of the site and provide adequate footcandle illumination in
pedestrian areas.
Noise impacts would primarily result from construction activities associated with the project,
primarily for the demolition of the existing buildings, clearing and grading, construction of the
proposed infrastructure improvements, and future construction of the mixed-use buildings
(Exhibits 33 and 34). The construction noise would be regulated through the City's adopted noise
level regulations per Title 8 Chapter 7, RMC. The City's construction standards limit haul hours
between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the
Development Services Division. As the site is within 300 feet of a residential area, permitted
work hours are limited to Monday through Friday between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight
o'clock (8:00) p.m. Work on Saturdays is restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m.
and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays. Noise impacts would be
temporary and associated with construction. The City's construction standards are anticipated to
adequately mitigate these impacts. Once the project is completed, no significant long-term noise
impacts are anticipated. The City has a noise ordinance that sets noise limits outside of
construction as well.
D. Screening. As conditioned, unattractive site features will be adequately screened from view and
separated from other uses.
The Applicant did not provide sufficient details of roof or surface mounted equipment and/or
screening identified for such equipment with the land use application. Therefore, a condition of
approval requires the Applicant to submit a special utility and landscape plan set that includes
cross-section details identifying the location and screening provided for all surface and roof top
utility/mechanical equipment and identify how they would be screened from public view. The
Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
of public right-of-way view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace required
landscaping areas.
City regulations require minimum amounts of area devoted to refuse and recycling for
multifamily development, specifically a minimum of one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet per
dwelling unit in multi-family residences shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas, except
where the development is participating in a City-sponsored program in which individual
recycling bins are used for curbside collection. A minimum of three (3) square feet per dwelling
unit shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of eighty (80) square feet
shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas. Based on the total number of proposed
units (385), a combined total of 1,732.5 square feet of refuse and recycle deposit area is required.
Per the proposed floor plans, five (5) trash rooms are located throughout the development for
the collection of refuse and recycling. Together the interior refuse and recycle areas totaling
approximately 1,621 square feet (Phase 1 – 694 sf, Phase 2 – 449 sf and Phase 3 – 478 sf).
Garbage truck access for the collection of refuse and recycling areas appears to come from the
parking garage entries at the ground floor. A condition of approval requires that the Applicant
provide a detailed refuse and recycling collection plan.
According to staff testimony, the storage areas for the project will be located indoors and hidden
from exterior view.
E. Fencing and Retaining Walls. Proposed fencing will not create any significant impacts and no
retaining walls are proposed.
The project site plan or civil construction drawings do not denote any existing or proposed
retaining walls within the subject property. Most of the site includes a chain link perimeter fence,
including the site’s shared southern boundary with May Creek Trail Park (Exhibit 34). The
Applicant is proposing a new metal fence along the south side of the property and around the
perimeter of the on-site dog park (Exhibit 2). In addition, a metal fence is located along a portion
of the street frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd N. A condition of approval
requires that the Applicant submit a detail fencing plan with the civil construction permit
application that provides material details, height, and location of the fencing within the site. The
fencing shall be consistent, high-quality, commensurate to the materials that are used throughout
the development, and consistent with the shoreline fencing requirements of the code. The fencing
material shall be wood, metal, ornamental, or comparable material as approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager. Chain link fencing shall not be accepted.
F. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features and will protect the
natural landscape by retaining and enhancing existing vegetation and soils, using topography to
reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces.
The majority of the existing parcel is generally void of any meaningful vegetation with the
exception of areas along the right-of-way and shoreline buffer. The shoreline vegetation
conservation buffer, located at the site’s southwest corner, includes little to no vegetation and is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
covered with impermeable surfaces. In an effort to provide a functional lift to the existing
shoreline buffer, the SEPA MDNS includes measures to enhance and reduce loss of existing
vegetation by requiring reducing the pavement width for a portion of the emergency vehicle
access road and require restoration planting onsite within the shoreline buffer. In addition, the
Applicant is proposing to protect the natural landscape by retaining significant trees along the
shoreline buffer.
Soil disruption is minimized for a project of such large scale. The Applicant submitted a
Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley &
Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021 (Exhibit 13) with the master site plan application. The observed
near-surface soil conditions within the central portion of the site (proposed residential building
area) were generally composed of 1 to 2 feet of historical fill over about 15 feet of interlayered,
soft to medium stiff silt and loose to medium dense sand/silty sand with variable amounts of
gravel and trace organics. These soft/loose upper soils appear to extend slightly deeper into the
northern portion of the site (20 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs)). Below these soft/loose to
medium stiff/medium dense upper soils, historical borings encountered dense to very dense,
interlayered sand, silty sand with gravel, and silty/sandy gravel with cobbles. These dense
underlying soils are interpreted as glacially over-consolidated and considered suitable for
support of deep foundations. The Applicant anticipates approximately 2,880 cubic yards of
excavation and approximately 4,335 cubic yards of fill to support the construction of the
proposed development.
G. Landscaping. Aesthetic, noise, light and privacy impacts will be minimized by existing and
proposed landscaping. As determined by staff, the proposal as conditioned will meet City
landscaping standards and thus provides for adequate landscaping.
The Applicant submitted Landscape Plans (Exhibit 4), a Tree Retention Plan (Exhibit 11), and
an Arborist Report (Exhibit 5) with the application submittal. The existing onsite landscaping
includes relatively small areas of shrub and groundcover species, predominantly along the west
and south property lines. A minimum 15-foot (15’) wide landscape strip is included between the
back of the sidewalk and the proposed buildings along Lake Washington Blvd N. Frontage
improvements along project street frontage would include landscape strips between the curb and
sidewalk.
Existing significant trees onsite include red alder, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, European
birch, Douglas fir, and black pine with a range of 6 to 35 caliper inches (DBH). The Applicant
is proposing to retain a minimum of six (6) significant trees (Arborist Report) or up to eight (8)
significant trees were proposed to be retained in the landscape plans near the southeast corner of
the property (one (1) bigleaf maple and five (5) to seven (7) red alders). The conceptual
landscape plan illustrates trees, shrubs and ground cover that would be used to enhance the visual
character of the buildings, street frontages, interior roadways, and interior parking areas. The
landscape plan includes 190 replacement trees to be planted throughout the site as part of the
overall development proposal (Exhibits 4 and 11). The proposed new trees would serve as a
visual buffer for the proposed development. In addition, all offsite trees would be preserved and
protect in place along the south property line within the May Creek Trail parcel.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
No irrigation was shown on the landscape plans. Underground sprinkler systems are required to
be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas. A condition of approval requires a detailed
irrigation plan with the civil construction permit application.
The designed surface parking lots, amongst the three (3) phases, would provide a total of 195
spaces. A minimum of 35 square feet of landscaping or 7,035 square feet of per parking space
would be required. The Applicant is proposing approximately 1,200 square feet more than the
minimum required amount of landscaping for the proposed amount of surface parking and the
interior parking lot landscaped areas meet or exceed the minimum dimension of 8 feet by 12 feet
(8’ x 12’). The site plan includes surface parking between the north (Lake Washington Blvd N)
street right-of-way and the east (I-405) limited access right-of-way and Building 1. Therefore,
perimeter parking lot landscaping would be required. The proposed perimeter parking lot
landscaping is approximately 11 feet to 70 feet (11’-70’) wide and would comply with the
minimum required 10-foot landscape strip along all public street frontages.
H. Critical Areas. The proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The
critical areas identified at the project site are each assessed individually below. No wetlands,
streams or habitat management conservation areas are located on the site. All impacts to the
critical areas are found to be adequately mitigated as the Applicant has demonstrated to the
satisfaction of staff that with staff recommended conditions (all adopted by this Decision), the
critical areas are mitigated to the extent required by the City’s critical area regulations.
1. Seismic Hazard Zone. City of Renton (COR) mapping indicates the site is located in a
high seismic hazard area. The primary requirement for development with a seismic
hazard area is preparation of a geotechnical report that can conclude that with
recommendations, if any, the proposal will not increase the threat of the geological
hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and the
proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and the development can be safely
accommodated on the site. The Applicant has prepared the required geotechnical report
and staff has found that the report satisfies the criteria with adoption of its
recommendations, which are required as a SEPA mitigation measure. RMC 4-3-
050(2)aii.
The seismicity of western Washington is dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone,
in which the offshore Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the continental North
American plate. The project site is located within less than a mile of the mapped Class
A Seattle Fault Zone which runs roughly in a northwest to southeast direction through
the southern end of Mercer Island (USGS Interactive Fault Map). Because of the
relatively close distance from this fault zone, there is a potential of surface rupturing at
the project site. The geotechnical engineer found the project site to be classified with a
relatively low risk of surface damage from potential rupturing given the distance to the
mapped fault and the significant amount of sediment underlying the site (at least 75 feet,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
based on explorations). As a result, the relatively thick sediment layer would tend to
reduce the potential surface impact of possible bedrock rupturing at depth. The
geotechnical engineer indicated that significant portions of the soft fine-grained soils and
loose to medium-dense sandy soils in the upper 15 to 25 feet bgs are susceptible to
liquefaction during the anticipated design earthquake event. In addition, the geotechnical
engineer found that because the current and planned development is relatively level and
not near a steep slope, the risk of potential lateral spreading is considered very low at this
site.
As required for seismic hazard areas, the Applicant prepared a geotechnical engineering
report, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021
(Exhibit 13). Due to the above-referenced potential for seismic induced geotechnical
hazards in a seismically active area generally including surface fault rupture, soil
liquefaction, and lateral spreading the report recommends the use of AC piles as the most
suitable and cost-effective deep foundation system for this project. As the report has
confirmed the soft to medium stiff fine-grained and loose to medium dense granular near-
surface soils at this site are compressible/potentially liquefiable and not generally
considered suitable to directly support shallow building foundations. Consequently, a
SEPA mitigation measure requires following the recommendations of the geotechnical
report, review of the construction and building permit plans by the geotechnical engineer
to ensure compliance with intent and recommendations of the report, and onsite
supervision by the geotechnical engineer during identified stages of construction. The
geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the
construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications
meet the intent of the report(s).
.
2. Flood Hazard. The project site is currently not in any flood hazard or floodplain. It has
been mapped as a flood hazard but that designation has been removed. As provided in
the Critical Areas Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (dated August 23, 2019;
Exhibit 20), and indicated on the Survey Flood Hazard Data and Boundary &
Topographic Survey (Exhibit 24) a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) Determination
Document (Removal) was issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on
May 22, 2012 that removed the project site from the special flood hazard area (Exhibit
20). The property was determined to be still valid as of August 19, 2022 when the
Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
issued new or revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels (Exhibit41).
3. Shoreline. The project site is located within the Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction
of May Creek. The shoreline designation for the project encroachment is Shoreline High
Intensity. As determined by staff, the proposal is consistent with the City’s Shoreline
Master Program regulations and it is hence determined that the proposal as conditioned
adequately mitigates impacts to the May Creek shoreline. As determined in the
Applicant’s stream study, Ex. 22, as mitigated the proposal will result in no net loss of
ecological function.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
May Creek has a 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer for uses not designated single
family residential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the objective of the High
Intensity Overlay is to provide opportunities for large-scale office and commercial
employment centers, as well as, multifamily residential use and public services. This
district provides opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses while
protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that
have been previously degraded. Development may also provide for public use and/or
community use, especially access to and along the water's edge.
May Creek does not run on the site. However, its 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction and the
vegetation conservation buffer extends onto the site in two (2) locations at the
southwestern corner of the property. The area of the site included within the vegetation
conservation buffer is currently unvegetated and covered with impermeable surfaces. The
proposed area of impact to the shoreline zone would be approximately 55,854 square feet.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, non-water-oriented development should be
permitted where it does not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses, or
where there is no direct access to the shoreline. Comprehensive Plan management policies
indicate that priority is given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in
the High Intensity Overlay District. According to the Applicant, it is not possible to
completely avoid impacts to the shoreline on the project site.
Stormwater, collected on the proposed impervious surfaces within shoreline jurisdiction,
is proposed to be collected and treated using two (2) BioPod water quality filters by
Oldcastle. Furthermore, no untreated stormwater would be released into the May Creek
shoreline zone south of the project site. Staff has determined that the project would meet
current stormwater management requirements for treatment.
The project is proposing to include aesthetic objectives through appropriate development
siting, design standards, screening, landscaping, open space, and maintenance of natural
vegetative buffers. Based on the current development plans, the amount of impervious
surface would be reduced from 82 percent under current conditions to approximately 76
percent of the proposed developed condition. The Applicant is proposing to reduce the
100-foot vegetation conservation buffer or the retention of the existing 5,347 square feet
reduction to the vegetation conservation buffer so that it terminates at the site's southern
boundary. The Applicant’s stream study indicates that the degraded vegetation buffer
would not cause a net loss of ecological function due in part to the retention of the existing
stormwater ditch and the proposed buffer averaging of 5,519 square feet of vegetative
buffer enhancement (landscape planting) near the southeast corner of the property. In
addition, enhanced stormwater treatment is anticipated to further improve the removal of
toxic metals, organic compounds, sediments, and other debris. No other mitigation is
being proposed by the Applicant. To improve the vegetation buffer areas along the
shoreline and maintain trail access between the formal May Creek Trail and the proposed
project, a SEPA mitigation measure requires that the Applicant remove all non-native
invasive blackberry plants currently growing within the May Creek Trail Park property
(north of May Creek) located along the site's southern boundary. In addition, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
Applicant shall restore the existing soft surface trail and/or construct a new soft surface
trail of permeable materials, limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce
impacts to ecologically sensitive resources, from the proposed onsite May Creek Trail
connection gate to the formal May Creek Trail located near the water (approximately 60
feet in length). The trail and vegetation management plan would be reviewed for
compliance with the Shoreline Master Plan Regulations as a component of Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit.
I. Cultural Resources. As mitigated, the proposal will adequately protect any adverse impacts to
cultural resources.
The Applicant submitted a cultural resources report that concluded that monitoring was
necessary due to the potential for artifacts at the project site as follows:
WillametteCRA considers the Project to have moderate to high potential to
encounter archaeological materials due to the possible presence of a winter
village on May Creek, materials related to the Colman farmstead, and the
generally high probability Project setting at the outlet of May Creek into Lake
Washington. Existing site conditions do not permit conventional archaeological
testing. WillametteCRA recommends that Project elements be reviewed once full
project plans and cross-sections are developed in final design to develop a
project-specific monitoring plan.
Ex. 38, p. 19.
The cultural significance of the site was corroborated by comments from the Duwamish Tribe,
Ex. 29 as well as Ms. Dalton, Ex. 60. The Applicant’s cultural resources report recommends
monitoring for a list of specified construction activities that could potentially damage artifacts.
Compliance with the recommendations of the report is required by the MDNS issued for the
project.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The proposal will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water
and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.
B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and
Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the
proposed development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
C. Drainage. Adequate drainage facilities are proposed. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary
Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 12), which proposes a drainage system that
staff has found as conditioned to comply with the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
Manual (RSWDM) and other City stormwater standards. Conformance to the RSWDM and
associated standards establishes adequate provision for drainage.
The TIR analyzes existing conditions and proposed surface water collection and
distribution. According to the TIR Report, the project would be adding more than 7,000
square feet of new impervious area, so the project falls under Full Drainage Review and
Conservation Flow Control (Level 2). Water quality is required since the project would add
more than 5,000 sf of pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) that is not fully
dispersed. The project is required to provide enhanced water quality. Due to the limited
increase in peak flow rate, this project is exempt from flow control. The Applicant proposes
to use two (2) BioPod Water Quality Filters by Oldcastle to provide enhanced water quality
treatment. This type of facility has General Use Level Designation (GULD) approval from
DOE. One of the BioPods would be used to treat the northern half of the access rod, the
northern multifamily residential unit building with associated parking, and the clubhouse.
The second BioPod would be used to treat the southern half of the access road and all other
multi-family residential unit buildings. A formal sizing of the BioPod facility would be
completed during Final Design.
A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required due to clearing
and grading of the site exceeding one acre. The Applicant must obtain the permit and
provide proof prior to Civil Permit issuance.
D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
parks and open space.
Applicable Design District C standards require 50 square feet of open space dwelling unit.
The proposed 385 dwelling units in Phases 1-3 would result in a combined minimum
common open/recreation space area of over the required 19,250 square feet. As shown on
the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing open space in the form of courtyards
(approximately 35,300 square feet), pedestrian corridors, covered outdoor amenity space
(approximately 1,585 square feet) in Phase 1, retention of an existing detention area
(approximately 5,795 square feet) in Phase 1, and a dog park (approximately 1,125 square
feet) in Phase 3. The Site Plan and Design Plans (Exhibits 2 and 7) provide an approximately
5,842 square feet of combined interior recreation facilities in the form of fitness club rooms
and lounges in Phases 1 and 2. While each individual phase may not reach the standard,
collectively the identified common opens space and/or recreation areas are provided in an
amount that is adequate to be functional and usable to meet the guidelines of the code.
The project site borders May Creek Trail Park along the south property line. Access to the
May Creek Trail Park and the May Creek Trail would be provided via a gated access at the
south end of the property. Dog walking activities and increased public access to the May
Creek Trail are anticipated to increase as a result of the proposed development. The
Applicant is proposing to construct an onsite dog relief area at the southeast corner of the
site. The dog relief area amenities would include a 42" high perimeter fence, mulch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
surfacing, seating, and an overhead structure. The dog relief area is anticipated to be used by
pet owners who reside within the proposed development. The proposed onsite open spaces,
such as courtyards and dog relief area, would be visible and open and are anticipated to
provide residents and guests with a livable community designed to accommodate both active
and passive recreation opportunities.
Other recreation improvements in the vicinity include trail improvements to the King County
Parks East Side Rail Corridor and the extension May Creek's soft surface trail. As part of the
1-405 widening project (LUA17-000808), WSDOT is proposing to extend May Creek Trail
to the east (under 1-405 to Jones Ave NE) by 2024. Trail improvements would be constructed
above the 100-year floodplain and would provide approximately 600 linear feet of new trail
system for people and pets in the Kennydale area and other outdoor enthusiasts.
The city received public comments (via email) that identify incidents of non-residents of the
area parking at Barbee Mill and accessing the May Creek trail system near the May Creek
Peninsula (Exhibit 27). The May Creek Trial Park and May Creek Trail are located near the
23-acre Barbee Mill community, separated by King County Parks East Side Rail Corridor
and Lake Washington Blvd N. The Barbee Mill development was constructed with a
shoreline passive pedestrian trail and Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) tract along
May Creek that provides reasonable public access to and along the water's edge of Lake
Washington and May Creek. A NGPA trailhead sign was installed within the Barbee Mill
common area to welcome the Barbee Mill Community to the NGPA and identify regulations
by which to follow. For example, shoreline regulations, access hours, pet responsibilities,
and allowed activities. The public comments recommend mitigation measures to protect and
preserve the NGPA from substantially increased alteration or damage of the vegetation and
shoreline at Barbee Mill. Therefore, a SEPA mitigation measure requires that the Applicant
design and install a trailhead sign and dog waste station at the gated entrance to May Creek
Trail Park.
The park impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application would be levied.
The impact fee in effect for 2022 is 1,977.62 per attached multi-family dwelling unit (5 or
more units) or $761,383.70 for 385 multi-family units.
E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities.
The proposed vehicular access points would be a consolidated ingress and egress point in
the form of a roundabout at the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N and N 43rd St (about
midway along the west property line street frontage) and a secondary fire emergency access
driveway at the southwest corner of the site. The secondary fire access would be required to
include bollards or similar restrictive treatments to prevent general vehicle use from using
the secondary emergency access driveway. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that
the Applicant submit a revised site plan with civil construction permit application that
contains restrictive treatments to limit the secondary emergency access driveway entrance to
emergency access vehicles.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
The proposal provides a safe and efficient circulation pattern for both vehicles and
pedestrians within the site. The project’s internal public street alignment allows for safe
transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Pedestrian
walkways, internal to the development, would link guests to the public sidewalk system. A
condition of approval requires that the surface material for all pedestrian walking surfaces
be either concrete, unit pavers, raised boardwalk, or similar material.
Congestion and other transportation impacts were assessed in the Applicant’s Transportation
Impact Analysis (TIAO), Ex. 14. The traffic study was subject to peer review. Ex. 18. City
staff have determined that as mitigated by the TIA, the proposal complies with the City’s
congestion standards.
The TIA responds to comments made by the city and the city's secondary reviewer Transpo
Group (Exhibits 15-18). The TIA discusses traffic impacts and how the proposed project
traffic volumes relate to the traffic volumes assumed by Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) as part of the NE 44th St Intersection Control Analysis Report
(ICAR) prepared for the 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project
at the NE 44th St interchange (Exhibit 42). The ICAR evaluated the Level of Service (LOS)
analysis conducted by WSDOT and adjusted the WSDOT data for the Kennydale Gateway
project to reflect the proposed single-lane roundabout and project traffic volumes.
As part of the project background, WSDOT is constructing major improvements to the 1-
405 corridor between Renton and Bellevue. The project is known as the "1-405/Renton to
Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project" and is currently under construction and
scheduled to be completed and open to traffic in Fall 2024. WSDOT's Renton-to-Bellevue
project proposes to add one new express toll lane in each direction to 1-405 for about nine
miles beginning near State Route (SR) 167 and continuing approximately one mile north of
Interstate 90 (1-90). As part of the WSDOT project, WSDOT would rebuild the 1-405 / NE
44th Street interchange that would relocate NE 44th St/ Lake Washington Blvd N to pass
under 1-405 (often referred to as "The Flip"). On the west side of 1-405, regrading of Lake
Washington Blvd N would begin at about N 43rd St. As a result, the grade of the street at
Seahawks Way would be lowered by approximately five feet (5') to eight feet (8') compared
to the current overpass condition. The new interchange would also have HOV-only ramps
from the center lanes of 1-405 and a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station accessed from those
ramps. According to the TIA, a trip distribution pattern for the development site was derived
based on WSDOT's 2025 traffic volume forecasts. The project trips were assigned to the
roadway network based on most of the traffic destined to areas east of 1-405 where the
neighborhood's schools and services are located and only a small amount of traffic was
assumed to be destined to or from areas south of the site along Lake Washington Blvd N.
WSDOT, through its consultant HNTB, performed extensive analysis of the improvements
under construction at the NE 44th St interchange. It evaluated future conditions with and
without the improvements for the years 2025 and 2045. The year 2025 traffic volumes were
used for the analysis and traffic volume forecasts assumed traffic generated by major
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
developments (such as Quendall Terminals) and background growth. According to the
project TIA, the current proposal is expected to generate fewer trips than had already been
assumed in the WSDOT analysis (159 fewer trips in the AM peak hour and 153 fewer trips
in the PM peak hour). The TIA found that all nearby intersections (single -lane roundabout
at Lake Wash Blvd N / N 43rd St/ Site Access, Lake Washington Boulevard N / Seahawks
Way, NE 44th St/ (SB Off and On Ramps/ HOV Ramp/ NB off Ramp, and NB On-Ramp)
are expected to operate at levels of service LOS B or better in the year 2025 with the proposed
interchange configuration and the proposed Kennydale Gateway project.
According to the TIA, the proposed Kennydale Gateway project is expected to be fully
completed and occupied in the third quarter of 2025. Levels of service for intersections were
largely determined with the completion of the I-405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and
Express Toll Lanes Project in 2024. If the 1-405 project is not open to traffic in 2024 there
is a potential for longer-range impacts of traffic queues on Lake Washington Blvd N.
Therefore, a SEPA mitigation measure requires that the Applicant provide additional traffic
analysis to mitigate any traffic volumes realized should the I-405/Renton to Bellevue
Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project not be completed and open to traffic prior to
temporary occupancy of the phased project.
Additionally, the TIA analyzed the N 41st St / Lake Washington Blvd N intersection. The
analysis determined that eastbound movements from the stop sign are expected to operate at
LOS C in 2025 during both peak hours and concluded no further mitigation was needed to
accommodate the proposed project. As a result, the Kennydale Gateway project would not
change the levels of service and is expected to increase delay by a negligible amount (0.1
second added average delay per vehicle or less). Based on this analysis, the TIA concluded
that the project is not expected to adversely affect the 41st St / Lake Washington Blvd N
intersection and no mitigation was found to be necessary at this intersection.
Per the TIA, the proposed project is expected to generate an estimated 2,080 dai ly vehicle
trips with 162 trips during the AM peak hour (43 inbound and 119 outbound) and 170 trips
during the PM peak hour (102 inbound and 68 outbound). The submitted traffic report
determined that the combination of WSDOT improvements (replace the existing freeway
overpass with an under-crossing, add a direct access ramp connection to the 1-405 HOV
lanes, and replace ramp junction intersections with roundabouts) and Applicant
improvements (a single-lane roundabout at the Lake Washington Blvd N / N 43rd St/ Site
Access intersection) would operate well into the future. As a result, the TIA determined that
no further mitigation would be needed to accommodate the project and independent analysis
concurred with the results of the TIA. However, the limited data attached in the site access
worksheets showed eastbound AM peak hour queueing at the site access to be much greater
than the prior WSDOT analysis.
A measure of intersection adequacy is the LOS measured by average vehicle delay and
average queuing distance. Within the WSDOT report the LOS at the subject intersection is
shown to be LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours at a horizon year of 2025 and 2045.
The WSDOT report shows the LOS analysis with a northbound delay of 8.9/(7.0) seconds
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
(AM/(PM)) and a southbound delay of 8.9/(11.4) seconds (AM/(PM)) of Lake Washington
Blvd N. Further, the WSDOT report shows that the 95th percentile queuing length along
Lake Washington Blvd N is 100 feet in both the northbound and southbound directions
during the AM and PM peak hours. The analyzed queuing length in the WSDOT report with
the two (2) lane configuration would not pose a physical impact or queuing problem to any
of the adjacent intersections and the delay is acceptable per the City's Comprehensive Plan.
By comparison, the TIA prepared by Heffron Transportation Inc., concludes that a single-
lane roundabout would provide a LOS A in the horizon year of 2025 with a delay of
15.3/(1.9) seconds (AM/(PM)) in the northbound direction and 1.3/(3.4) seconds (AM/(PM))
in the southbound direction of Lake Washington Blvd N. Further the TIA shows that the 95th
percentile queuing length along Lake Washington Blvd is 391/(48) feet (AM/(PM)) in the
northbound direction and 33/(134) feet AM/(PM)) in the southbound direction of Lake
Washington Blvd N. That proposed queuing length would also not pose a physical impact or
queuing problem to any of the adjacent intersections.
Under the current configuration on Lake Washington Blvd N, the N 43rd St / Lake
Washington Blvd N intersection (subject intersection) is stop controlled along N 43rd St
such that travelers on Lake Washington Blvd N are able to travel uninterrupted. According
to the TIA, the proposed project would add one (1) net new AM trip and five (5) net new
PM trips northbound into the subject intersection. The estimated 2025 horizon year trips
northbound on Lake Washington Blvd N would total 791 AM and 293 PM peak hour trips
with 750 AM and 218 PM peak hour trips passing through the intersection continuing
northbound. As previously indicated, with the addition of the proposed single-lane
roundabout, vehicles are estimated to experience a queue distance of 391 feet and a delay of
15.3 seconds during the AM peak hour (Year 2025). To reduce the anticipated horizon year
increased impacts in queuing and delay with the proposed addition of a single-lane
roundabout, a SEPA mitigation measure requires that the Applicant add a second northbound
approach travel lane and a second northbound travel lane within the roundabout at the project
intersection. It is anticipated that these proposed mitigation measures would more closely
align with the street network currently under construction by WSDOT and would still align
with the existing street frontage improvements at the southwest corner of the property. The
final length of a second approach travel lane would be required to be analyzed and presented
to the City for review and final approval.
In addition, a SEPA mitigation measure requires that the Applicant add a second southbound
lane within the roundabout at the N 43rd St/ Lake Washington Blvd N intersection that would
include one (1) travel lane through the roundabout and one (1) dedicated right turn lane onto
N 43rd St. The two (2) approach travel lanes into the intersection would be an extension of
the two (2) southbound lanes currently being installed by WSDOT as part of the 1 -405
widening project and the single through lane would connect to the existing single southbound
lane on Lake Washington Blvd N. This would provide the same volume of travel lanes
currently under construction by WSDOT but convert them to a roundabout configuration at
the intersection. A slight decrease in queuing length and no marginal change to delay would
be experienced by vehicles. Dedication would be required to install the identified roundabout
configuration and roadway improvements as determined by a survey.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16
RMC 4-6-060 governs the City’s street design standards. Lake Washington Blvd N -
classified as a Collector Arterial street with an existing right-of-way (ROW) width of
approximately 60 to 150 feet. To meet the City's complete street standards for Collector
Arterial streets with two (2) lanes a minimum ROW width of 83 feet is required. Per RMC
4-6-060, half street improvements from the ROW centerline include a minimum 46-foot
paved road (23 feet each side), a one- half-foot (0.5') wide curb, eight-foot (8') wide planter
strip with street trees, eight-foot (8') wide sidewalk, two-foot (2') wide clear zone behind the
sidewalk, and storm drainage improvements. Dedication of approximately 11.5 feet would
be required pending final survey. However, with the development of the NE 44th St
Interchange by WSDOT, an alternate street section has been designated for this section of
Lake Washington Blvd N. North of the roundabout, the current approved construction
drawings consist of two (2) travel lanes in both the northbound and southbound direction,
five-foot (5') wide bike lane in the northbound direction, one-half-foot (0.5') wide curbs,
eight-foot (8') wide planting strips, a 12-foot sidewalks, street trees and storm drainage
improvements (Exhibit 43). One southbound lane has a dedicated right turn lane onto N 43rd
St while the northbound configuration widens from a single lane to two (2) lanes at the N
43rd St intersection. Per WSDOT's 1-405 Renton to Bellevue - NE 44th Street intersection
Control Analysis Report (WSDOT Report), (dated July 2018), a multilane roundabout
configuration at the Lake Washington Blvd N/NE 43rd St intersection was assumed (Exhibit
42). In addition, the TIA and ICAR assumed the conversion of the Lake Washington Blvd
N / Seahawks Way intersection to a right-in/right-out configuration and that improvements
to these two (2) intersections would be constructed at a future date which is evidenced by
WSDOT's 1405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project construction
drawings (Exhibit 43). No proposed controls or right-of-way construction improvements
were proposed as part of the TIA or civil plans (Exhibit 11) to not allow left turns either into
or out of Seahawks Way. Conversion of the intersection at Seahawks Way and Lake
Washington Blvd N to a right-in/right-out configuration would be further analyzed with site
plan review.
The proposal includes a street modification for the alternate roadway section (Exhibit 40).
For example, north of the proposed roundabout, the proposal shows frontage improvements
connecting to WSDOT's improvements within the Kennydale Gateway projects frontage.
The proposed improvements, north of the roundabout, are anticipated to be in alignment with
the approved WSDOT plans for the NE 44th St Interchange. Compliance with street standard
requirements would be further analyzed with site plan review.
The proposal has passed the City's Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit
25), which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth
levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, site specific improvements, and future
payment of Transportation Impact Fees. The transportation impact fee that is current at the
time of building permit application would be levied. The impact fee in effect for 2022 is
$6,717.10 per attached dwelling unit and 7,145.85 for PM peak hour person vehicle trip.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 17
17
Increased traffic created by the development would be further mitigated by payment of
transportation impact fees.
Impacts to system wide transportation network will be mitigated via imposition of traffic
impact fees pursuant to the terms of the City’s transportation impact fee ordinance. The
proposal has also passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit
25), which is another congestion standard adopted by the City. The City’s concu rrency
standard is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth
levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, and future payment of appropriate
Transportation Impact Fees.
F. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transit and bicycle
facilities.
Transit service in the region is provide by the King County Department of Transportation
(Metro Transit). There are multiple routes that run along I-405 in the vicinity of the site
(Routes 11, 167, 204, 342, and 560). In addition, a new Stride Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
station will be constructed along the I-405 corridor at the NE 44th St interchange. The 44th
St BRT Station is being constructed as part of the I-405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and
Express Toll Lanes Project with support funding from Sound Transit. The S1 line between
Burien and Bellevue is currently anticipated to begin operating in 2026 or 2027. The project
proposal would not alter current or future transit services.
Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of
required off-street parking spaces for commercial retail and one-half (0.5) bicycle parking
space per one attached dwelling unit. The submitted site plan and architecture sch ematic
design plans include several bicycle rooms and lounges within level 1 (Exhibits 2 and 7).
However, not enough detail was provided to identify quantities or other bicycle parking
standards of the code and therefore a condition of approval requires that the Applicant
establish conformance to the City’s bicycle parking standards in its floor plans submitted for
building permit review.
G. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking.
The Applicant proposes to provide parking to accommodate approximately 386 parking
spaces at the completion of the project. Building 1 (Phase 2) would provide 60 structured
parking spaces and 45 surface parking spaces for 105 residential units and approximately
1,500 square feet of retail space. Building 2 (Phase 1) would provide 57 structured parking
spaces and 72 surface parking spaces for 129 residential units. Building 3 (Phase 3) would
provide 68 structured parking spaces and 84 surface parking spaces for 151 residential units.
RMC 4-4-080.F.10.d requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per attached dwelling unit
and allows a maximum of 1.75 per unit. Commercial activities are based on n et square floor
area for retail sales at a 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The TIA anticipates a portion of the
surface parking spaces to be allocated for the Phase 2 retail uses. Compliance with parking
requirements would be further analyzed with site plan review.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 18
18
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and hearing examiner site plans as Type III applications,
shoreline substantial development permits as Type II applications and street modifications as Type I
applications. RMC 4- 8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the
highest-number procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, hearing examiner site
plan, shoreline substantial development permit and street modification applications are subject to Type
III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), Type III review is subject to hearing and final decision
by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned and has a
comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and is in Urban
Design District C,
3. Review Criteria/Street Modification Approval. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval
for all phased development in the COR zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions,
SEPA exempt projects and utilities. Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any
nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). Hearing
examiner site plan review is required for the proposal because it involves more than 100 attached
residential units and more than 300 parking spaces per RMC 4-9-200D2b. The criteria for master plan
and hearing examiner site plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for shoreline substantial
development permits is set by RMC 4-9-190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) use regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are
quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
Street modification standards are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The findings and conclusions of
Finding No. 23 of the staff report are adopted by reference and it is concluded that the proposal meets
the criteria for the street modification identified in Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 3. The modification
identified in FOF No. 3 is approved on that basis.
Master Plan and Hearing Examiner Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 19
19
be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
4. The proposal involves combined site plan and master plan review. The staff have found both
general (master plan) and specific (site plan) conformance to applicable review criteria, which is also
found to be met in this Decision as articulated in the conclusions of law below.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies,
especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 171 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 18 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “C” and consistent with
Design District “C” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 19 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this
recommendation are “FOF No. _____.”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 20
20
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation by
FOF 6(E), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(D), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E)
and lighting by FOF 5(C).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(A). Extensive landscaping is
required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade
and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion
quoted above. Natural features are adequately protected as outlined in FOF No. 5(F) and (H).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 21
21
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than
directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including
the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E), regular vehicular access is consolidated into
one point on Lake Washington Boulevard. Although Lake Washington Boulevard is a collector
arterial, there is no other street available that could be used as an access point. The only adjoining
property not separated by a road is May Creek Trails Park to the south, in which no public benefit
would attach from a road connection. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal
circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(E). Loading and delivery will be
separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No. 5(D). The proposal will be served
by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(F).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(D).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for interior view corridors to Lake Washington and
May Creek and provides for access to shorelines as detailed in FOF No. 5(B).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 22
22
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met. The proposal adequately protects natural systems for the reasons identified
in FOF No. 5(F) and (H).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
13. The criterion is met. The Applicant is proposing to develop the site in three (3) phases and the
proposed project is expected to be fully completed before the end of 2025. As indicated in the Project
Narrative and Phasing Plan (Exhibit 28), the Applicant proposes a sequencing plan to construct each
building and associated improvement as part of each phase – Phase 1 would include the construction
of Building 2 with 129 residential units (located in the southwest corner of the site), Phase 2 would
include the construction of Building 1 with 105 residential units and approximately 1,500 square feet
of retail space (located in the northern portion of the site), and Phase 3 would include the construction
of Building 3 with 151 residential units (located in the southeastern corner of the site). Each phase is
anticipated to be approximately one third of the site. A condition of approval requires that the
Applicant submit a detailed phasing plan with sequencing and timing for the construction of all on -
site and off-site improvements prior to civil construction permit issuance.
Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted,
provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives a nd
intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 23
23
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines
of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
14. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed
in Finding No. 22 of the staff report. In summary, the proposal would result in no net loss of ecological
function since as demonstrated in the Applicant’s critical area reports, shoreline processes would be
maintained or improved through addition of vegetation and enhanced stormwater treatment
technologies.
The project site does not include any body of water protected by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA),
however it does extend into the 200 foot SMA jurisdiction of May Creek, located to the south of the
project site. The Applicant’s Critical Areas Report (Exhibit 20), Habitat Data Report (Exhibit 21), and
Standard Stream Study (Exhibit 22), prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. assessed project impacts
to May Creek. The proposed project would be confined to the former Pan Abode property and only a
limited number of trees would be removed. The Applicant’s proposal would maintain a minimum 100-
foot setback for structures from the OHWM. Within the setback area, the Applicant has proposed
restoration planting and pedestrian access to May Creek Trail Park (Exhibits 4, 5, and 11). Proposed
vegetation would include shrubs, grasses, ferns, and groundcovers. Bioretention planting would be
located in a stormwater facility at the southwest corner of the property. According to the Critical Areas
Report, no direct impacts to any critical areas would result from the proposed development. To improve
the vegetation buffer areas along the shoreline and maintain trail access between the formal May Creek
Trail and the proposed project, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a mitigation
measure to remove all non-native invasive blackberry plants currently growing within the May Creek
Trail Park property (north of May Creek) located along the site’s southern boundary. See also
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report (Exhibit 1) for more information.
Because the property was determined to not be within the floodplain of May Creek, no adverse effects
on floodplain habitat function or the species they support are expected to occur. According to the
Report, the proposal would include required landscaping and open space. In addition, the Report
maintains that the prevention of undetained and untreated runoff would help improve some of the
functions of the buffer by protecting the water quality of May Creek.
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
Applicant’s master plan, site plan, shoreline substantial development permit and street modification
applications are met by the proposal and the applications are approved subject to the following
conditions of approval:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 24
24
1. The Applicant shall comply with the eight (8) mitigation measures issued as part of the
reconsideration Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, dated November 7, 2022.
2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed phasing plan with sequencing and timing for the
construction of all on-site and off-site improvements. The detailed phasing plan shall be
provided to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction
permit issuance.
3. Prior to civil construction permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a draft public street
easement to the City for required half-street street frontage improvements on Lake Washington
Blvd N to ensure all street frontage improvements can be repaired and accessed. A final public
street easement (or equivalent) shall be required to be submitted and approved prior to
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of Phase 1.
4. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the minimum freeway frontage setback or
receive a setback variance approval to encroach into the required 10-foot freeway setback
located along the eastern property line.
5. The Applicant shall provide a detailed irrigation plan with the civil construction permit
application. The detailed irrigation plan shall be provided to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
6. The Applicant shall submit a revised tree retention and replacement plan that demonstrates
compliance with the minimum tree retention requirements of the code by retaining a minimum
of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees on site. Alternatively, the Applicant may include
a minimum of three (3) new supplemental replacement trees with a minimum size of at least
four-inch (4”) caliper in a revised landscape replacement plan as adequate replacement value to
the significant trees that could be retained at the southeast corner of the property. A final detailed
landscape plan would be required to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a civil
construction permit.
7. Prior to issuance of a civil construction permit the Applicant submit a completed tree retention
and credit worksheet that demonstrates compliance or exceeds the minimum tree credit
requirements of the code.
8. The Applicant shall submit utility and landscape plans that include cross-section details
identifying the location and screening provided for all surface and roof top utility/mechanical
equipment and identify how they would be screened from public view. The Applicant shall work
with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out of public right-of-way
view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace required landscaping areas. In
addition, no utility boxes shall be located at the entrances of the site between the buildings and
the public street. The special utility and landscape plan set shall be provided to, and approved
by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit and/or building
permit approval.
9. The Applicant shall provide a detailed refuse and recycling collection plan. The final detailed
plan shall also be provided to the City’s contracted refuse and recycling hauler (currently
Republic Services) with any correspondence to and from the hauler provided to the Current
Planning Project Manager.
10. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the minimum and maximum onsite parking
stall count for each phase of the development or request an administrative parking modification
to reduce the overall vehicle parking prior to civil construction permit issuance.
11. The Applicant shall provide demonstrate compliance with the minimum standard and accessible
parking space general requirements along the primary access interior roadway that connects to
N 43rd St. The final detailed site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to civil construction permit approval.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 25
25
12. The Applicant shall provide bicycle parking for up to 195 spaces (Phase 1 – 65 spaces, Phase 2
– 54 spaces, and Phase 3 – 76 spaces) and indicate compliance with bicycle parking standards
on the floor plans submitted with the building permit application. Bicycle parking details shall
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
issuance.
13. The Applicant shall submit a detail fencing plan with the civil construction permit application
that provides material details, height, and location of the fencing within the site. The fencing
shall be consistent, high-quality, commensurate to the materials that are used throughout the
development, and consistent with the shoreline fencing requirements of the code. The fencing
material shall be wood, metal, ornamental, or comparable material as approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager. Chain link fencing shall not be accepted. The final fencing details
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
14. The Applicant shall submit revised building design plans that include added design features that
would ensure enhanced privacy for residents along the ground floor for units that are not abutting
a courtyard. The revised architecture schematic design plans shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
15. The Applicant shall submit a detailed entrance plan that includes specifications for pedestrian
amenities that add to the pedestrian experience and the human scale intended for the
development. A revised detailed entrance plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
16. Where applicable, the Applicant shall make all ground floor building entrances to individual
units convenient to access and include a minimum five-foot (5’) wide transition space from the
street or sidewalk to the unit entry. The revised plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
17. The Applicant shall incorporate one (1) additional visual prominent feature that is compatible
with the development and project location in form and scale, such as public art. The revised
plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
permit issuance.
18. The Applicant shall add enhanced urban cladding materials to the southwest corner of the
parking structure façade of Building 2. The detailed design elevations shall be provided to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
19. The Applicant shall provide a more direct accessible pedestrian connection from Lake
Washington Blvd N to the proposed concrete sidewalk that terminates at the southwest corner
of Building 2. A detailed site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance.
20. The Applicant shall provide sidewalks with a width of at least ten feet (10’) of unobstructed
walking surface along the commercial retail façades of Building 1. In addition, the Applicant
shall increase the width of the interior sidewalk located along the south facing façade of Building
2 to a minimum of five feet (5’) to be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated
numbers of users. A detailed site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
21. The Applicant shall submit detail sheets and quantities of all fixed outdoor site furniture and
amenities, including, but not limited to, benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, pet relief
areas/disposal, and outdoor recreation equipment. The detail sheets and quantities shall be
integrated in the detailed landscape plan submitted with the civil construction permit to be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 26
26
22. The Applicant shall submit verification that weather protection is at least four and one-half feet
(4 ½’) from the building and along five percent (75%) of the non-residential façades facing the
public street and interior streets and/or provide a written narrative of how the proposed weather
protection meets the intent and guidelines of the Pedestrian Environment section of the Urban
Design Regulations with the building permit application. The graphic verification and/or written
narrative shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit issuance.
23. The Applicant shall provide a durable high quality parking security screen or similar that is
consistent with more traditional urban development when located on the façade facing a public
street. Revised architectural elevations and a materials board shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
24. The Applicant shall provide texturing, reveals, or similar to the exposed concrete walls on the
ground floor. Revised architectural elevations and a materials board shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
25. The Applicant shall submit an overall sign design package for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the project.
26. The Applicant shall submit a final lighting plan with the building permit applications that
includes detail sheets of all light fixtures and their supports. Fixtures and supports shall be
pedestrian scaled and consistent with the design of the site and provide adequate footcandle
illumination in pedestrian areas. The detailed lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
27. The surface material for all pedestrian walking surfaces shall be either concrete, unit pavers,
raised boardwalk, or similar material as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
28. The Applicant shall submit a revised site plan with civil construction permit application that
contains restrictive treatments to limit the secondary emergency access driveway entrance to
emergency access vehicles. The revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance.
29. The Applicant shall prepare a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) to manage any
environmental impacts discovered during future redevelopment involving soil disturbance or
mass excavation, including any underground storage tanks. Compliance with the identified
Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance. In addition, if contamination is
identified, the Applicant shall follow Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) requirements to notify
Ecology and take measures to protect workers and future residents.
30. The Applicant shall allow gate access to May Creek Trail Park during on-site retail business
hours. The final fence detail plan shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to issuance of a civil construction permit.
31. The Applicant shall provide three (3) designated and signed short term public parking stalls near
the gated access to the May Creek Trail Park property. The final parking plan shall be provided
to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of a civil
construction permit.
32. The Applicant shall be required to provide a site-specific public access signage package with the
civil construction permit application. The public access signage package shall be provided to,
and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit
issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 27
27
33. The Applicant shall complete a covenant with the City to dedicate land required for street
frontage improvements on Lake Washington Blvd N to ensure applicable half-street frontage
improvements (such as the roundabout, roadway, bike lane, curb, planting strip, and sidewalk)
are located within the public right-of-way upon completion of the phased project. A covenant to
dedicate the land required for street frontage improvements on Lake Washington Blvd N would
be required prior to civil construction permit issuance.
Decision issued February 9, 2023.
Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 26
Appendix A
February 7, 2023 Hearing Transcript
Kennydale Gateway -- LUA22-000011
Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The
reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the
limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available
on the City’s website should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, let's get started. My name is Phil Olbrechts. I'm your hearing examiner for this evening for the city
of Renton, and we are considering some applications for the Kennydale Gateway Project, a 385-unit
apartment complex, and the applications involved and what we are reviewing tonight are applications
for master site plan, hearing examiner site plan, shoreline substantial development permit, and a street
modification.
The hearing format will be, we'll start off with a presentation from staff Clark Close, a senior planner
with the city of Renton, will give us an overview of the project. He's the one that put together the staff
report for the project. And once he's finished, we'll then move on to the applicant team. They'll have an
opportunity to speak in support of their application if they want. Then after that we'll get to the most
important part of today's hearing, and that is hearing from the citizens out there.
This is my first night hearing for the city of Renton since I've been there since 2011. So this is a little
different for us, but there were some members of the public who wanted to have the opportunity to do
it at night, because people of course have to work during the day and staff was happy to accommodate
that. So a little different for us, but I think we can all handle thinking after six o'clock, that can be done.
Now, by state law I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put into the record today and that
evidence will consist of tonight's testimony. And I'll probably have an informal transcript prepared, so I
can be sure to address all of your concerns and information that's presented.
And also staff gives me, as I mentioned, Mr. Close had put together a staff report and along with that
staff report he had a set of exhibits. At this point, I just want to put those into the record. And Mrs.
[inaudible 00:01:48], if you could give us the complete exhibit list that includes the staff PowerPoint and
that kind of thing, and maybe put that at full size. So I can't quite read it at that... Is there some way you
can share that? Maybe that's just the way I have the screen set up, but all right.
Okay. So the exhibits, there's quite a bit of them. I mean, we have the environmental review committee
report. This was a report prepared by city staffers who consider the environmental impacts of the
project to determine if an environmental impact statement needs to be done or whether that can be
avoided by what they call mitigated determination of non-significance. And staff determined that MDNS
mitigated determination on significance could be issued instead along with some mitigation measures to
avoid probable significant adverse impacts.
We have a bunch of reports that company, this project, including a geotechnical report to make sure
that even in the case of an earthquake, these buildings will remain stable. We have a transportation
impact analysis, we have a lighting schematic, we have a view assessment, we have architectured
schematic design, and image packages. We have of course, site plan for the project, and we have all of
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 26
your citizen comments as well. They're in there too. And I did read all those in advance of the hearing.
And Jenny, maybe if you can scroll down, we have a total of... Is it 44 documents and is that including
the site plan, or excuse me, the PowerPoint presentation?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, 44 documents and then we also have the exhibits for the stock report.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. So actually it's says...
Ms. Cisneros:
It's lengthy.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, it is. So we get up to 62 documents. And that is... Mrs. [inaudible 00:03:33], I believe that's
available on the city's website, right? If anyone needs to see...
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes. There is a link that I have here if anybody would like to look at that.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. So if anyone needs to see any of those documents, go ahead and click on that link. At this
point, I just want to ask if anyone has any objections to entry in all these documents and Mrs. [inaudible
00:03:48], does that include the City of Renton core maps and Mr. Close's PowerPoint presentation? Is
that in the list?
Ms. Cisneros:
That does not. No, that's the next page.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. So 67...
Ms. Cisneros:
There was also a couple public comments that came after we sent this staff report.
Phil Olbrechts:
Have those been...
Ms. Cisneros:
And we'd also like to enter into the record as well.
Phil Olbrechts:
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 26
Okay. And did those new public comments, have they been submitted to me as well in advance of the
hearing?
Ms. Cisneros:
No, they have not.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, I don't think I've seen those yet. All right. And has the applicant received a copy?
Ms. Cisneros:
I believe so, yes.
Lori Obeyesbkere:
Yes, we have.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. All right, so at this point I just want to ask if anyone has any objections to exhibits 1 through
67. And really the only basis... This is not the time to contest or dispute the content of those exhibits. It's
really just if you don't find the exhibits to be relevant to this proceeding or maybe they're inauthentic,
like there's a fake deed in there or something else. And if you disagree with the contents of those, you
can just talk about that when it's your turn to speak. So based on that, on authenticity or relevance or
something of that similar nature, does anyone have any objections to entry those documents in the
record? If you do, just hit the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen or if you're able to do it,
unmute yourself and say, "I object."
So I'll just entertain any objections, not seeing any. So I will go ahead and enter exhibits 1 through 67.
And again, Mrs. [inaudible 00:05:17], could you real quick show the link to the documents in case there
are people out there that might want to download some of those documents as we're going through the
presentation? So there it is. It's httpscutt.ly/x3p099w. So that'll get you to all the documents that we're
going to be talking about during the hearing today, or at least the ones that have been submitted so far.
Now, all testimony too, will be taken under oath and let's get started with the presentations, then we'll
move on to Mr. Close. Mr. Close, are you there?
Clark Close:
I am.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but
the truth in this proceeding?
Clark Close:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 26
Clark Close:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Examiner. Let me go ahead and share my screen here. Make sure everybody can
see this. Are you able to see the slides?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yes.
Clark Close:
Okay. Perfect.
Phil Olbrechts:
Although, I will say that they're not taking up the whole screen for some reason. They're just in the
mode where your notes are actually shown. And there's the next slide that's coming up, is also shown,
and then we've got a bit... I'm just saying that because I think for people that are trying to see this on
their small computer screens, it's hard to see. Okay, now it's a little bigger. All right, that's better. Okay,
go ahead.
Clark Close:
Okay, so the notes are not showing but just the first slide.
Phil Olbrechts:
Right. Yeah. Now, it's down to that.
Clark Close:
Perfect. All right. Well good evening. Clark Close, Principal Planner in the current planning division here
at the city of Renton. Thanks for entering those exhibits into the record. And this constitutes staff
PowerPoint presentation, which I believe was exhibit 63. And that will be made available on the city's
website after today's public hearing. But specifically this is to satisfy the public hearing component for
master site plan, site plan review to construct three four-story apartment buildings and provide up to
385 residential units with approximately 1,500 square feet of retail space in the Kennydale community
planning area.
So tonight's PowerPoint presentation is set to go as follows. First, we'll start off with project location and
we'll move over to project background, project proposal, some of the process to date, talk about rent
municipal code analysis, followed by availability of public service and finish off with staff's
recommendation.
So the 7.76 [inaudible 00:08:11] parcel is close to triangular in shape. It is located at 4350, Lake
Washington, Boulevard North. The site is located approximately 250 feet from the eastern shore of Lake
Washington and is just north of May Creek and the City of May Creek Trail Park. The west property line
is located along Lake Washington, Boulevard North and the east property line is shared with the I405
limited access right away, southbound on [inaudible 00:08:40]. Some other notable development in the
area, was shown there in the aerial map, which includes Barbee Mill. That project or development began
construction about 16 years ago.
And then we also have the future [inaudible 00:08:55] property, which is just located north of Barbee
Mill, shown there on the map. And both of those development projects on the west side of Lake
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 26
Washington Boulevard or to the west of the subject property here. And the aerial image on the right
also provides a zoom in perspective of the project site in relationship to the rest of the city of Renton. So
you can see there that it's really on the far north end of the city limits.
The site is commonly referred to as the former Pan Abode site once home to Pan Abode Cedar Homes,
where solid timber homes and post beam homes were once manufactured. The site is mostly
impervious surfaces, initially developed with five light industrial buildings in several smaller structures.
Three of the industrial buildings have since been demolished and most recently a warehouse and a silo
shack were approved for demolition in 2018 and the proposed Kennydale Gateway redevelopment
activity would remove the remaining buildings and their foundations. The site is currently being used by
Flatiron Lane Joint Venture, often referred to it as FLJV, as a temporary filled office, lay down yard, and
staging area for the construction equipment and materials for the I405, written to Bellevue Widening
and Express Toll Lanes project, under the tier two temporary use permit. That tier two temporary use
permit is identified as a LUA19-000318. And that tier two temporary use permit is set to expire on April
24th, 2025. So it was issued for five years.
Again, the applicant's requesting master site plan review hearing, examiner site plan review, shoreline
substantial development permit, as you mentioned that project has gone through the [inaudible
00:10:58] environmental review process. Here tonight, we're also requesting a street modification again
to construct 385 residential units and approximately 1,500 square feet of retail space, in three different
phases. The project site is located in the Kennydale community planning area and [inaudible 00:11:20]
has a comprehensive land use designation and is zoned commercial office residential. So one of the few
properties that has both the same zoning and land use designation, COR and is also within the Urban
Design District C overlay. Shoreline high intensity, May Creek Reach B designation, flood hazard areas
and seismic hazard areas are some critical areas that have also been mapped on this site.
In addition to the residential units, in commercial space, the applicant is also proposing five wraparound
at grade courtyards in a combination of 195 surface parking spaces and 180 ground level structured
parking spaces within the building. The big use development would be divided as I mentioned into three
phases. And here you would also have three four-story apartment buildings. Buildings one, two, and
three highlighted there in the exhibit two, with an approximate height of 54 feet. Each phase would
include the construction of one of three proposed buildings. Phase one would include the construction
of building two at the southwest corner of the site. Phase two would include the construction of building
one at the northern portion of the site. And phase three would include the construction of building
three at the southeastern corner of the site. Access to the proposed development would be from Lake
Washington Boulevard North at North 43rd Street via a roundabout, a second emergency vehicle access
from Lake Washington Boulevard North is located at the southwest corner of the site or south of the
existing stormwater detention area, shown here on the site plan.
Here are four 3D renderings that provide a visual representation with the proposed buildings from I405
Lake Washington Boulevard North and from the interior of the site. The top right image is showing
building one, looking northeast from the roundabout, showing the retail at the corner and the
residential units above and behind. The top left image provides a neighborhood contact showing Valley,
or the VMAC rather. Off the distance there, you've got Barbee Mill again, May Creek Trail and I405. And
from these renderings, one is able to visualize some of the proposed frontage improvements, entry
features, building articulation, roof profiles, material and color changes, open space, upper floor
balconies, landscaping and connection to public areas. The project does have to navigate some moving
parts along the Project Frontages, for example, [inaudible 00:14:18] is currently constructing major
improvements to the I405 corridor, between Renton and Bellevue.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 26
The project is commonly known as the I405 Renton and Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lane
Project. It is not scheduled to be completed or open to traffic until the end of next year. Just a brief
description of the [inaudible 00:14:39] I405 work, includes adding one new express toll lane in each
direction to I405 for about nine miles beginning near SR 167 and continuing approximately one mile
north of Interstate 90. Rebuilding the I405 Northeast 44th Street interchanges, which is what you're
looking at here on the slide. Would relocate Northeast 44th Street, Lake Washington Boulevard North
pass under I405. This is often referred to as the flip. As a result of the flip grading would need to take
place from North 43rd Street through North 44th Street, which would lower the grade of Lake
Washington Boulevard North along the property frontage and it is estimated that right in and around
Seahawks Way, so just to the north here, that the roadway would be lowered by approximately five to
eight feet compared to the current overpass configuration.
As an impacted property to the I405 widening project, a sidewalk and slope easement agreement would
occur on the Western portion of the property. This is necessary in order to construct and maintain the
sidewalk-related improvements for the purpose of pathway available for public use. So again, can just
kind of working within the confines of the I405 widening project and making sure that those frontage
improvements work in conjunction with this project.
So now, I'm going to briefly summarize some of the processes to date. Starting out with an online video
conference, which was our standard neighborhood meeting for larger projects, this was facilitated by
the applicant and was held on July 14th, 2021 via a Zoom meeting similar to what we're doing now. And
several members of the public were able to attend the meeting and provide comments in questions to
the applicant. The land use application then was accepted for a review on January 11th, 2022 and
determined complete on January 13th, 2022. That information can be found in the exhibits as well. And
the project was placed on hold for additional information on February 14th, 2022 and taken off hold on
May 10th, 2022. The project was then placed back on hold for secondary review on June 17th, 2022 and
that was traffic or transportation related where we reached out for secondary review on the applicant's
TIA. We brought in the transpo group and then the project was ultimately taken off hold for a second
time on August 31st, 2022. And then notice of today's public hearing was published on January 26th,
2023.
Throughout the past year or so, staff has received over 20 public comments, as it was mentioned early
on, and those were typically in the form of emails. And staff also did receive agency comments from the
Duwamish tribe and the Department of Ecology. Those comments again can be founded in exhibits 26,
29, 31, 56, 60, 62 and a couple more that were entered in a little bit later on. I think those were 67 and
68. Briefly, those comments received were regarding historical and cultural elements, transportation,
parking, neighborhood community impacts, bicycle and pedestrian safety and the time of the public
hearing. Pursuant to the City of Renton's environmental ordinance and state environmental policy, on
September 26th, 2022, the Environmental Review Committee issued a determination of non-significance
mitigated for the project of the DNSM indicated or included eight mitigation measures.
A 14-day appeal period commenced on September 26th, and ended on October 10th. A notice of appeal
of threshold determination was filed on October 10th, 2022 by the owner of the property.
Subsequently, on October 28th, the applicant made a request to initially process the notice of appeal as
a reconsideration request. Following the reconsideration request on November 7th, 2022, the [inaudible
00:19:31] review committee reissued a determination of non-significance mitigated for the project and
since then no other appeals or reconsiderations of the threshold determination have been filed. Staff
did complete... Apologize for all those dates, but yes, those are were important and they did take quite a
bit of time to get through. But ultimately staff did complete the hearing examiner staff report about a
week ago today, which leads us to today's or tonight's public hearing.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 26
For the next few slides, I wanted to briefly highlight some of the items that were reviewed in much
greater detail, obviously within the hearing examiner's staff report. For example, the staff report
identifies six goals and 12 policies of the comprehensive plan that the proposal is compliant with. For
example, goal LI is to utilize multiple strategies to accommodate residential growth, including infill
development on vacant and underutilized land, establishing neighborhoods and multifamily areas. As a
result, the proposal is consistent with relevant comprehensive land use policies. The proposal has
demonstrated compliance with all relevant zoning regulations in design exchangers if all conditions of
approval are complied with and all, reference how many conditions staff is recommending in the last
slide. But the project or proposal complies with master plan, site plan review and critical areas,
regulations of all conditions of approval are complied with.
The proposal is demonstrated compliance with the Shoreline Substantial development permit
regulations. Again, if all conditions of approval are complied with and the proposal complies with street
modifications, if all conditions of approval are complied with and there are safe walking routes to the
school bus stop assigned by the Renton School District. And that would be at the intersection of Lake
Washington Boulevard North and North 43rd Street for all the students. So in other words, at the
roundabout, these proposed to be constructed by the applicant, so not far to walk for the bus stop. And
there's quite a few, as you can see from the side plan, quite a few sidewalks that would connect the
units to that proposed bus stop.
Moving forward here, police and fire prevention staff have indicated there's sufficient resources to
furnish services to the proposed development. Fire protection would be provided by Regional Fire
Authority and it is anticipated that the Renton school district can accommodate any additional students
generated by the proposal at the following schools. And I've identified those and the school district has
identified those as Hazelwood Elementary School, Risdon Middle School, and Hazen High School. Water
and Sewer service would be provided by the city of Renton.
The applicant submitted a preliminary technical information report prepared by Core Design
Incorporated, indicating that no flow control facility would be required or is being proposed for the
project. The applicant is proposing to use two [inaudible 00:23:04] water quality filters to provide the
required enhanced basic water quality treatment. The project would be subject to comply with the
current version of the city of Renton Surface Water Design Manual in impact schools, parks, traffic and
fire Service would be mitigated for above and beyond the CPA mitigation measures and the conditions
of approval via the payment of impact fees. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Kennydale
Gateway Master Site plan application subject to 33 conditions of approval. And those conditions are
included in the hearing examiner staff report. And with that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thanks Mr. Close. Yeah, I have a few. As you know, I think a lot of the public comments
were voice and concerns from the Barbee Mills Homeowners Association and increase in trespass on
their native growth protection area and also apparently a trail that accesses the like in their community
as well. And I really appreciate all the responses you gave to all the public comments and all jurisdictions
do that and I think that really makes my job easier as well as it's really great for the public too. And your
response for the NGPA issue was that I think that code enforcement essentially can issue tickets, that
kind of stuff. I mean do you know what the penalties are for trespassing on NGPAs and has the code
enforcement ever really issued tickets for that kind of trespass?
Clark Close:
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 26
Good question. I am not familiar with any kind of tickets that would be associated with that. However,
we do have a fairly robust code enforcement program and certainly that's kind of the head of the lead
should we receive any kind of complaints associated with impacts to the native growth protection area,
which were ultimately created in compliance with our Shoreline Master program in order to provide
access to the water as well as protect the critical areas that existed at the time.
Phil Olbrechts:
Well, and also I was kind of wondering, it's been a while since we had the Quendall Terminal hearing. Is
there going to be lake access up there? I'm kind of wondering if that'll maybe sort of siphon off some of
the pressure to use the lake access in Barbee mills, 'cause I know there's going to be a boardwalk
involved there. I can't recall if there's going to be a boat ramp or anything for the public to use, but
would that maybe reduce some of the pressure from the Barbee Mills community?
Clark Close:
Yeah, I would agree with that. The Quendall Terminals project, obviously lots of remediation going on
there, but certainly the entire shoreline was protected and would provide significant amount of public
access and availability that could offset some of the impacts that we're seeing at Barbee Mills.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, that'd be good. And then another thing that kind of occurred in the public comments was
about people didn't believe the traffic counts were accurate because they were done in the winter
months and there's the impression that there's a lot more traffic in the summer apparently, I guess
because of the parks in the area and that kind of thing. I mean, do you have any response to that? Was
there an adjustment made for that or is it maybe that the traffic engineers don't believe there's more
traffic in the summer? What's the response to that concern?
Clark Close:
Yeah, I've got our development engineer, Nate Janders.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Clark Close:
And we also have Transpo group available to spearhead any kind of questions, transportation related.
Phil Olbrechts:
So let's bring up [inaudible 00:26:54]. Okay. Mr. Janders, let me swear you in. You swear affirm and tell
the truth nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Nate Janders:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Yeah, if you can answer that question, that'd be great.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 26
Nate Janders:
Yeah. So we reviewed the transportation, excuse me, we reviewed the transportation reports that were
provided. We concurred with the data that was in there. The data does go towards the horizon year, and
so we do take into account background growth rates and apply a factor to those. So any differences
taken between actual counts at the time and future counts are also accommodated in those background
growth rates that we use.
Phil Olbrechts:
Does it take into account seasonal differences though? Because it doesn't seem like this is a growth
issue, it seems like this is simply, like I said, I don't know if the perception is accurate or not, but there
seems to be a perception that seasonally there's a lot more traffic than the summer months. And again,
I'm just speculating. I think maybe because of the lake access and that kind of thing.
Nate Janders:
Certainly there could be an element to that as part of it. However, we don't believe that there was
anything wrong with the data of was presented.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And also, I was just looking at the aerial photographs. Is there a bicycle trail on the other side of
Lake Washington Boulevard from the project or I couldn't tell if that was some minor access line or if
that's an actual separate trail.
Nate Janders:
There is. That's the Eastlink Trail corridor along there that stretches from Gene Coulon Park area all the
way up through Bellevue.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, Okay.
Nate Janders:
Utilize both pedestrian and bicyclists.
Phil Olbrechts:
And I take it there's no need for this project to improve that at all or anything because that's on the
other side of the street, is that correct?
Nate Janders:
That's correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Yeah. And is there any bicycle plan or anything? I mean just to confirm for the record, that would
require bike lanes on the other side of the Lake Washington Boulevard or any of the other front yard
streets?
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 26
Nate Janders:
The entirety of Lake Washington Boulevard does require bike lanes along it. The applicants only
responsible for their half of the street. There will be through the roundabout though street crossings to
make for both pedestrians and cyclists to access that trail of desired.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, I see. So there's going to be a bike trail on the project side of Lake Washington Boulevard, but there
are going to be access points across, is that how it works?
Nate Janders:
Correct. There's a five-foot bike lane along Lake Washington and then the sidewalk along here is also a
12-foot excuse path.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. And then I think there's another standard where I had to say that it complied with any
applicable street plans for the area. Were there any street plans that specifically applied to this area that
needs to be complied with?
Nate Janders:
That was part of the modification and the modification is compliant with our master plan for the Lake
Washington Boulevard.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Great. Okay. Thank you Mr. Janders. Appreciate your help on this one. Thanks.
Nate Janders:
You're welcome.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right, let's go back to Mr. Close. The cultural resources report was a great report by the way, that
really went into some detailed history of usage of the area and I think there was at least a moderate risk
of cultural resources there. And I know there's a pretty good plan about what to do if human remains
are found, but I couldn't quite tell what happens if they find artifacts though, their cultural resources
report really didn't mention that. I know there's going to be some archeological monitoring, but what if
they do discover artifacts that aren't human remains? Is there a regulation that requires that the project
stop at that point or what would happen?
Clark Close:
There is, yeah. So as part of the CP mitigation measure, in his response to the tribes department of
ecology, if the applicant does find cultural or human resources that they would have professional staff
onsite during excavation and the project would stop and follow the typical procedures for discovery.
Phil Olbrechts:
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 26
And then I took a close look at the view analysis, the viewpoint analysis views of the shoreline, that kind
of thing. And I didn't really see any photographs on the north end. I mean, right now there's a row of
trees basically that separates the project site from I405 and cars going up and down 405 probably can't
see much anyway, but it didn't look like there were a lot of trees on the north end. And right now there
doesn't appear to be much development on the north end. And we're talking about putting one of the
buildings there. Wouldn't that block some of the shoreline views ultimately, or not?
Clark Close:
On the north end of the project or [inaudible 00:31:30]?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, north end of the project site. Yeah, there's going to be... One of the three buildings is going to be
built right there. And like I said, right now it looks like there's a clear shot to Lake Washington if you're
driving down 405 or to... It's hard to tell.
Clark Close:
Yeah. So we anticipate that the roadway i.e. Lake Washington Boulevard North would drop in elevation.
The limited access right away for WSDOT property does extend. So there's about a half acre on the
north side that does contain a few trees, but not a ton as well as an access point for the existing
development. But we do not anticipate that the project would have any negative impacts on Fuse to the
North.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Clark Close:
And then I believe Quendall Terminals was also planned in such a way that this project would have views
to the west kind of through some building corridors as well.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And just to confirm for the record, is there an [inaudible 00:32:30] recharge area in this part of the
city?
Clark Close:
Off the top of my head, I don't believe so. No.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And then also in reading the geotech report, the city's critical areas ordinance requires that you
prepare a geotech report so they can reach the conclusion that the... Let's see, that the development
can be safely accommodated on the site and that the development won't adversely affect any adjoining
properties by destabilizing the soils of that kind of thing. I didn't see that report made any of those
conclusions. I don't know, is there somebody maybe that can confirm that based on the geotech report
that staff has found that the proposal can be safely built on the site and not adversely affected joining
properties?
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 26
Clark Close:
I can let Nate comment on that.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Clark Close:
If he wants to. And then also certainly the applicant.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, maybe the applicant can address that too. But Mr. Janders, did you review the geotech report?
Like I said, it just didn't really make the conclusions that are required in the critical areas report and it
would've been nice just to see that put in writing someplace.
Nate Janders:
We did take a look at that report. I would also defer to the applicant for stability of the structure.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. We'll do that then. Yeah, if the applicant, of course you're listening to this line of
questioning, if you have somebody that can answer that question, that'd be good. Just so that I have
that in the record. Also, Mr. Close, in terms of offsite privacy impacts, I mean, will any of these buildings
have line of sight into the homes over at Barbee Mills? Is somebody on the fifth floor or fourth floor of
these apartment buildings going to be looking into the back windows of somebody's home on the
adjoining Barbee mills development?
Clark Close:
I want to say it's over a hundred feet from the closest building to the closest residential property on
west of Lake Washington Boulevard. We also have the trail, the King County property that includes the
trail that has significant width and vegetation within it. So the short answer would be, I am not
[inaudible 00:34:41] negative impacts.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. And then you mentioned this is going to be built in phases and whenever I see a phase
project, I'm always concerned what if they stop building after the first phase? Will they be short on open
space, that kind of thing? I mean, has staff looked at it from that perspective to ensure that if they
stopped, they don't complete all the phases that wherever they stop they'll be adequate open space and
everything else?
Clark Close:
Yes. Staff is recommending is a condition of approval that we get a detailed phasing plan, which would
identify when the buildings would be constructed and so forth.
Phil Olbrechts:
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 26
Okay. Let's see. And then, yeah, this is kind of a minor matter. One of the criteria, the storage areas are
properly screened and separated. How are the storage areas going to be incorporated into the project
here? Or are there storage areas even?
Clark Close:
There are storage, like bike storage for example, or trash enclosures. Those would be within the confines
of the building, so underneath the structure or within it.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. Great. Perfect. Okay. I think, yeah, that's all I've got so far. Thanks for your clarification. Let's
move on to the applicant team right now. Who wants to speak on behalf of the applicant?
Alicia Stedman:
Hi, my name's Alicia Stedman and I'll be speaking on behalf of applicant.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear you in. Ms. Stedman. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Alicia Stedman:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And your last name is spelled S T E D M A N, is that correct?
Alicia Stedman:
That's correct, yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Alicia Stedman:
Hi, my name is Alicia Stedman and I'm development manager on the Kennydale Gateway Project for
Vulcan Real Estate. I've been working with Clark Close and the city of Renton on the design for this
master development plan since 2019, several years of work we put into this project. Our team is very
excited to get to this point. Today we have the full design team on the call to help answer any questions
that may come up from Vulcan. We have Brandon Morgan, Corinda Harris and Ian Warner. We have our
civil engineers with Core Design, Matt Steffenson and Lake Vinson. We have Laura Langley with Berger
Landscape Design. Our traffic consultant is Marni Hefron. And on the calls our [inaudible 00:36:58]
attorney Holly Golden with HCMP.
The full design of this project has been the hands of our architect, Gloria [inaudible 00:37:08] and John
[inaudible 00:37:09] with HLR Architects. We'll actually keep our presentation really brief as we've done
extensive work with the city to get to this point. And in regards to the staff report, we are agreeing to all
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 26
the conditions of approval and have no objections to move this project forward. At this point, I'm going
to turn it over to Lori to give a little bit more detail and background on our project design.
Lori Obeyesbkere:
Hello, I'm Lori Obeyesbkere with HLR Architects.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear you in. You swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Lori Obeyesbkere:
I swear.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And just to get your spelling right for the transcript, is that O B E Y E S...
Lori Obeyesbkere:
B K E R E [inaudible 00:37:56].
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Perfect. All right, thank you. All right, go ahead.
Lori Obeyesbkere:
Thank you. Thank you, Alicia, for the introduction. As Alicia mentioned, the team agrees with the
characterization outlined in the staff report. I'd like to just briefly touch on some details of the project
related to design intent. I actually have a couple images. Would it be possible for me to share my
screen?
Phil Olbrechts:
Mrs. [inaudible 00:38:19], can you enable her to do that? Mrs. [inaudible 00:38:27], are you there? So
you can't... Oh, there you go.
Lori Obeyesbkere:
There we go.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, you're there. Okay, good.
Lori Obeyesbkere:
Great. So this is a vicinity map just to touch back on our location. As Clark had gone into detail about, we
are just north of the May Creek Trail at the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and I405 to
the east of our site is the single family development. This location offers a dynamic link of everyday life
to nature and territorial abuse. The connectivity of this site is prevalent throughout our design. The
layout of the buildings is organized around interior courtyards and the landscaping reinforces that
proximity to the May Creek Trail. We use neutral materials to ground the project while pops of color
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 26
evoke urban design. The scale of the project maintains the surrounding neighborhood aesthetic and
responds to the adjacent or development that is the long I405.
Moving to the next image using the proposed roundabout along Lake Washington Boulevard as an
identifiable entrance into the site, the main amenities in retail for the project are proposed here. A
pedestrian friendly entrance with open spaces and covered plaza activate the site while clearly
delineated pathways and recess covered entries help to define pedestrian areas and engaged tenants
throughout the project. Sufficient parking and services will be provided throughout the site, hidden by
the buildings and substantially landscaped. The proposed apartments are studio, one bedroom and two
bedroom configurations with an average size of 800 square feet. Prominent building features include
but are not limited to private residential balconies, delineated roof features and modulation and
interest along the facades and durable varied materials. With the incorporation of significant
landscaping, pedestrian friendly features, and a building design that responds to the surrounding area,
the project intends to create a positive community and an environment that activates the site and
connects to the people that live there. And that's the introduction to our design intent. Thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you. All right, anything else from the applicants?
Alicia Stedman:
That's everything.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Do you have the geotech? Maybe you can answer my question about...
Lori Obeyesbkere:
I can respond to that.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, sure.
Lori Obeyesbkere:
Yeah. So as far as the building impact to the structural soils, everything about the building is proposed
above grade. So there will be minimal to no impact on the structural soils as well as with everything
being above grade, there will be minimal digging and refill along the soils.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Lori Obeyesbkere:
So we don't see a whole lot of impact there.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Perfect. All right. Thank you. All right. Well, I guess we are finally done with the opening
presentations and we can now move on to public comments. And at this point, I'm going to look at the
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 26
attendee list. If any of you want to say something at this point, raise your virtual hand, click on the thing
at the bottom there. And I see we have Lawrence Reymann. Who wants to speak first? Mr. Raymond,
let's see. Can you say something so we know you're on? Are you there, Mr. Raymond?
Lawrence Reymann:
There we go. I was looking to unmute myself.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, that's the most challenging part. So let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear
affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Lawrence Reymann:
Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And your last name is spelled R-E-Y-M-A-N, is that correct?
Lawrence Reymann:
Two Ns.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, all right. Sorry about that. Two N's at the end. Right.
Lawrence Reymann:
My father liked to say the second N is silent as the P in swimming.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's pretty silent. And Mr. Reymann, did you want to get a copy of the decision?
If you do, we'll need your email address or mailing address, whichever way you prefer to get that.
Lawrence Reymann:
I believe Jennifer has all that information.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Good. Great. And go ahead. [inaudible 00:42:44].
Lawrence Reymann:
Yes. No, I appreciate the opportunity to talk and I think this thing can enrich our neighborhood. I'm very
involved in the environmental movement and on the board with the Environmental Science Center. I
would love to see this development connect to the heritage that May Creek involves environmentally
and in particular, the salmon runs. I've been counting salmon in that creek for almost 30 years. The runs
are hanging on by a thread, but when you see the fish in that creek, you are a believer. So I would love
to connect this development to that natural area. I would love to see the First Nations who lived there
for centuries before we got here, recognized and their language, the name of the creek in [inaudible
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 17 of 26
00:43:44] was a drying out place. It was a summer camp of the Duwamish people. And there's a great
history with an amazing woman pioneer, Clarissa Coleman, who homesteaded that area.
Her husband was murdered traveling across the lake to testifying a trial. They found him and a 14-year-
old boy in the south end of Mercer Island. And she never married again, made a living selling butter with
dairy cattle to the miners in New Castle, and quite an amazing woman, pioneer. So the history there is
rich, the environment is rich. And I think the more that this development recognizes that and respects
that, the greater the contribution it can make to the community, anything that they're interested in
doing with education, which is what the Environmental Science Center does. We're located in Liberty
Park and we do a Salmon Heroes program, and we would love to connect with the people who live there
and the people who are building it. I know that Vulcan has had some strong connections with the
environment, and I would love to build on that and make this place a home to the heritage that the
people here represent. So thank you for the opportunity to say that.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, thanks Mr. Reymann. And yeah, as I mentioned before, the cultural resources report that was
prepared for this, and that's at the length that Mrs. [inaudible 00:45:27] provided, provides a really
detailed, and frankly, I thought a very interesting history of the project site. I think that people
interested in the history of that area, that's a great resource to see exactly what's happened over the
last few hundred years actually at the project site. So, all right, let's move on to the next speaker. And
that's KD. Ms. D, your name just appears as D, do you want to say something so we know you're on
tape?
Kai Dalton:
Yes, I'm Kai Dalton.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, Kai Dalton. Okay. How do you spell your last name, Mr. Dalton?
Kai Dalton:
D A L T O N.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, let me swear you in. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Kai Dalton:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
And does Ms. [inaudible 00:46:06] already have your email address or...
Kai Dalton:
Clark should at least...
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 18 of 26
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. All right, then you're said. Okay, go ahead.
Kai Dalton:
I am kai Dalton. I'm a board member at the New Castle Historical Society. I also happen to live upstream
on May Creek, Jeff, I think that was, touched a bit on the history here, but I have been actually the
person within the New Castle Historical Society researching May Creek. So I've done quite a bit of work
and upstream in May Valley as well. I'd like to start with the fact that this is, as previously mentioned, a
very, very, very rich area in history. It's very unique to me. And of course May Creek has a special place
in my heart because living here and interacting with the environment is something very special for me.
But there's a lot more to it than as is public knowledge or that gets sent into public comments and
reports and was published, which by the way, the CRA was very, very good read. I appreciate the work
that was done there.
So first of all, I'm going to go back to the very beginning here. The Lake Duwamish moved into the Lake
Washington area about 10 to 12,000 years ago. I don't know if any exact date is known for this particular
site as far... I've talked to the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, and I did not hear
anything about that, but maybe someone out there knows. But the point is they move in, they settle all
over Lake Washington and for 10 to 12,000 years, they have zero contact with any other group other
than regional tribes. And of course, you have the Yakima coming over the past and trade and war and all
sorts of things going on. And then in 1855, the Treaty of Point Elliot assigned, and that takes away a
bunch of land and grants all these different tribes reservations in exchange.
The Duwamish tribe did not receive such a reservation, and today they are not federally recognized,
although there are descendants of the tribe in federally recognized tribes. Going a little bit past that,
once you have the 1850s passed by and you get into the 1860s, a lot of important things start happening
in the Seattle area. Coal is discovered in New Castle, which jump starts industry on the east side,
particularly near is [inaudible 00:48:33] New Castle kind of became tied in communities there. Renton,
of course, had coal discovered in the 1850s. You had early sellers like Tobin and Smith, and you had a lot
of interaction between people at that time. And it's important to note that a lot of the homesteading
that went on did not happen until the 1870s, because before it was kind of less legal and you couldn't
have large claims that came about 160 acre to 240.
But the first person to settle here, and as the current Creek's namesake, was Mr. May. Unfortunately, I
don't know about more about them other than that, but that's where the creek gets its name from. It's
originally known as May's Creek. And then people very quickly dropped the s. And then you have past
that, you have the Coleman family settling there in 1875. They inhabited the area until about the 1950s.
Then you have a lot of industry. That's where you get things like the [inaudible 00:49:29] Company up at
Quendall Terminals. And for my research more importantly, you also have an extremely important
history. Part of the history of Washington state, you have the logging industry. In 1905 ish, the Lake
Washington Mill company, which was previously existed all the way back in the 1880s, set up an
operation at the site. And while I have no official record, they likely had a sawmill operation, though a
shingle mill would've been serviced by the nearby belt line shingle company, which is at the President
condo site in north of the Seahawks Training Center.
And they really drove a lot of the industry here. You have the mill company came in first, they started
the first logging railroad, and by 1921, all of the timber in May Creek that had been purchased by them
and others had all been logged out. As such, there's no [inaudible 00:50:26] forest left within May Creek
or any of the surrounding Renton Highlands area. The attraction of the mill company also, again brought
along the [inaudible 00:50:36] company, which set up at Quendall Terminals. So there's a lot of tie-in
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 19 of 26
here. And the Colemans who were homesteaders here, the very important people, they sold a lot of this
land off to them. Then in 1903 around there you have the Northern Pacific coming in with a belt line. So
there's really quite a bit of a very important industry, although it's no longer there or visible to the vast
majority of it is definitely a very important part of the region.
And also historically, the environment changes, right? And May Creek has probably seen one of the
greatest environmental changes that I am aware of, especially on the east side, which even with the lake
levels being lowered and all that sorts of stuff, quite an incredible feat of engineering probably back
then. But also something that's probably quite ecologically disastrous is that the creek was taken and
shifted all the way from its historic location to the current location that was done in about mid 1920s to
1930. Previously the creek ran closer to the exit center, exit center interchange, and then proceeded
towards the property boundary between Barbee Mills and Quendall Terminals. That is available
information with quite of other things. I think it's also available on the Quendall Terminals project
description. They have some maps and things like that showing the historic location. But where it runs
now is actually quite close to the logging railroad and the two bridges on Lake Washington Boulevard
and the present Eastlink Trails network, which used to be the North Pacific belt line.
Those bridges were originally there only because of elevation, and they had an underpass for the logging
road. Again, I have a documentation for all of this, so I can send it off to Renton or any parties who were
interested, if needed. And so you have all this stuff going on here. And that really leads me to my point
is that this is a area really, really, really rich with history. So there should definitely be some sort of
accommodation to that history. And part of that is I don't think the site should be developed or limited
development should be undertaken. Either that or a decision on a final decision should be delayed in
order to consider more information. There's a lot of value in environmental spaces, and maybe that's
not immediate economic impact in terms of cash and direct revenue to cities, but there is a lot of
cultural impact. Historical sites attract people to go see them. And especially with May Creek, like talking
about the salmon. If portions of the site were saved for wetland, because again, this area was
historically a wetland, and that's also visible on historic aerial imagery.
You can go back to the 1930s and the 1950s and you can see how inundated with water this is from the
surrounding areas. So historically, obviously things have changed in the presence with 405 being
construction and all things like that. But I believe the site has better use as a environmental and
historical and cultural resource.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, thanks Mr. Dalton, appreciate your testimony. All right. Next speaker is Leslie Smith, or not I
guess, or Yeah. Ms. Smith or Mr. Smith, are you there?
Leslie Smith:
I am, thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, there you are. Okay. Let me swear you in. Ms. Smith, do you swear Affirm to tell the truth, nothing
but the truth in this proceeding?
Leslie Smith:
Yes, I do.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 20 of 26
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And does [inaudible 00:54:13] have already have your email address or do you want to give that
at this point?
Leslie Smith:
I believe they do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Leslie Smith:
I have received information on this from [inaudible 00:54:21].
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right then. Go ahead.
Leslie Smith:
I appreciate the opportunity and I really appreciate you holding this in the evening for those of us who
have day jobs so that we can attend. The information's been very insightful and I look forward to going
through the exhibits and they may answer a few of the concerns that I have. It was mentioned that
there's going to be 385 residential units, 195 service parking spaces and 180 ground parking spaces,
which my mathematics say that's 375 parking spaces. So it seems like there'll be 10 residential units that
won't have parking, and then there's supposed to be commercial space. So I'm wondering where people
who come for the commercial space are going to use those. And then a lot of times these people who
live there, there's two people that live there that have two cars. So I guess I'm concerned about, what
types of mitigations are being considered for extra parking.
I'm sure it could be that not everyone's going to be there at the same time, but they're certainly
evenings and weekends, there's going to be people there. So where people going to park? Is it going to
overtake Lake Washington Boulevard? Which leads me to my next concern. I live not too far from North
30th and I've been in the neighborhood for over 20 years. And so I frequent Lake Washington Boulevard
[inaudible 00:55:48] biking or walking the dog. And so I see 385 residential units. There's more people
using the roadway. I know the roundabout is there, but I guess I'm concerned about other traffic
mitigations for pedestrian safety, speeding, speedings huge on Lake Washington Boulevard.
I know that there's some things being done at East South end near Coulon Park, but there's not a lot that
goes on the north end. And frequently people are going well over 25, they're passing people on the
double yellow lines or passing people on the shoulder. So have those concerns about the project and I
know it's been said that people feel that once the 405 project widening is done, that will help ease some
of the concerns. But my experience with that, driving north every day to [inaudible 00:56:43] is when
they put the hot lanes and it actually made traffic worse because people didn't want to pay for the hot
lanes. So I appreciate the opportunity to share those concerns.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. Janders, you want to answer those questions right now while they're
fresh in your mind about the parking sufficiency and speeding issues, that kind of thing?
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 21 of 26
Nate Janders:
Absolutely. Thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Examiner. I would [inaudible 00:57:07] parking to Clark.
Clark can answer some parking...
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Nate Janders:
... questions for us, but I can certainly answer the traffic calming, speeding concerns Ms. Smith raised.
She mentioned there is traffic calming that is currently in design down along the south side of Lake
Washington Boulevard. This is something that traffic operations and city staff as a whole is aware of
through the area. And we believe that the current traffic calming measures are taking place as well as
the proposed roundabout will help facilitate that. And it'll be something that we will continue to
monitor. And I say facilitate roundabouts are a useful tool, not just for traffic control, but also as a traffic
calming mechanism as cars have to slow to navigate through them. So currently there's absolutely
nothing. But with the roundabout in the future, there will be some inherent traffic calming at the north
end as well as the planned project that traffic operations is currently undergoing along the south end.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Janders and Mr. Close, what about that 10 stall deficiency that Ms. Smith brought up?
Clark Close:
Yeah. She brings up a good point. Here, the applicant is proposing up to 385 units currently as it's calced,
as she mentioned, we're at 375 parking stalls. If you do the math, based on current number of dwelling
units proposed in the commercial space and 1500 square feet of space, a minimum of 389 parking
spaces would be required at full buildout to meet a current code, phase one would require 105 stalls.
Phase two would require 132 stalls, including the minimum of maximum of four parking spaces that
would be required for the approximately 1500 square feet of retail use. And then phase three would
require 151 parking stalls. So staff did include as a recommended condition of approval number 11, that
the applicant provide/demonstrate compliance with the minimum standards, inaccessible parking
spaces requirement for the development.
Phil Olbrechts:
What's the total number again that's required for this project?
Clark Close:
Based on current numbers, it would be 389.
Phil Olbrechts:
389. Okay.
Clark Close:
That includes four parking spaces for the retail. And then one per unit for the residential.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 22 of 26
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Great. All right. Thanks, Mr. Close. All right. Does anyone else want to say something at this point?
I don't see any new takers. Ms. Smith, was there something? Okay. No, I don't see anyone else. So let's...
Oh, there's one more, Mr. Donohue. Okay. Mr. Donohue, you want to chime in there? Are you there,
Mr. Donohue?
Mr. Donohue:
[inaudible 01:00:04] myself. I'm a Barbee Mill resident. [inaudible 01:00:06].
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, I need to swear you in. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Mr. Donohue:
Yes, I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
And your last name is spelled D O N O H U E, is that correct?
Mr. Donohue:
That is correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. And does the city already have your email address?
Mr. Donohue:
I put it in the login, so I hope so.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Do you have it, Mrs. [inaudible 01:00:26]? He said he put it in the login.
Ms. Cisneros:
I don't know if I have the login.
Mr. Donohue:
It doesn't matter. I get it. I get it.
Ms. Cisneros:
But if you'd like to give it to me, I can write it down.
Mr. Donohue:
P as in Paul, T as in Thomas, R as in Robert, C as in Charles, K as in king, D as in Donohue, @comcast.net.
ptrckd@comcast.net.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 23 of 26
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Ms. Cisneros:
Thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
Thanks, Mr. Donahue. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Donohue:
So as I said, I'm a resident of Barbee Mill, past president of the Barbee Mill Homeowners Association for
six years. And I could argue about the parking requirements, but it's city code, so I can't argue about city
code. We don't have that kind of time. I couldn't see from all of the exhibits what is proposed along Lake
Washington Boulevard, along the fringe of this development for increased street lighting. I've lived here
for quite a while, and the street lighting on Lake Washington Boulevard, as a lighting professional
worked for city light for years in street lighting, sucks. What's proposed? I can't tell.
And my other concern is you're going to put a roundabout at our north entrance, and I am concerned
about mitigation, restoration of existing landscape. We're required to maintain that entrance and all of
that. We don't know what you're... It's hard to tell what you're proposing to put back in place after the
roundabout is constructed, et cetera. And also, what kind of mitigation are you doing at the current
gravel parking lot that abuts the rail trail on Lake Washington Boulevard with the shortage of parking at
the development, by my calculations, if you figure a car and a half or one and a half cars per living unit,
you're short about a hundred and seventy-five parking stalls.
What do you doing to mitigate that parking lot? It's going to be full of cars, overflow parking from this
unit. We'll probably get them in our neighborhood, but I'm more concerned about that parking lot right
now and it floods. Is there any impact or any proposal to help that area in your mitigation for building
this?
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, Mr. Janders, you want to answer those again?
Nate Janders:
Certainly. Okay. Excuse me. So first, I'll address of street lighting. City code does require street lighting
improvements to be installed when there are more than four residential units. So this property or this
project certainly is going to trigger that requirement. And Mr. Donohue's, right. Right now, the proposal
doesn't show and depict the street lighting, but that's perfectly normal. We usually see that at this stage
and during our civil construction permit, we will go through street lighting. The applicant will have to
provide details for streetlight locations as well as photometric analysis in order to show that it is
compliant with our street lighting standards, which are defined in code. So we do expect that that will
be provided and ensure that it is done come permit issuance.
In terms of the street, restoration, city does have north standards for restoration of the public right of
way. If there's any restoration that is offsite on private property, then it would need to comply with any
easements or temporary construction easements that are put in place. And I think for obvious reasons,
we don't know what those are at this point in time, but if there is work that is required on private
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 24 of 26
property, then we would ensure that easements are acquired prior to otherwise improvements would
need to comply or restoration would comply with city standard for within the right of way. And finally,
that gravel parking lot that's on the west side of Washington and budding the street there currently,
there are no planned improvements for that. That is the opposite side of the street as the development.
And the applicant is providing parking compliant with the code departments on site at this time.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Janders.
Nate Janders:
Thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Anybody else out there have any questions or comments? All right. I think we're done with the
public comment portion. Now, we go back to Mr. Close. Any rebuttal from staff or any additional
information you want to put in the record?
Clark Close:
No, I just highlight what Nate just said there, that there's also a condition of approval for a final lighting
plan to be provided by the applicant, not only for those frontage improvements but also on site. And
one other thing I did want to mention there is the SEPA mitigation measure. Two of them that relate
back to some of the public's testimony about the history of the site. And you've also mentioned the
cultural resources' assessment that is... Or has been provided as an exhibit here, but any future
disturbances would be monitored or observed by professional archeologists and consultation with
concern tribes would occur prior to any surveying activities. So there are SEPA mitigation measures to
cover the cultural or historic resources associated with this. And then also SEPA mitigation number four
talks about a Trailhead sign and an interpretive sign. An interpretive sign would be very good avenue
here to capture the history, or the rich history rather, of the site and make folks aware of that. So
certainly some good resources are available to the applicants come up with.
Phil Olbrechts:
I'm still a little unclear about what happens when they find artifacts though because the SEPA mitigation
measure just says go with the recommendations of the cultural resources report, which as I mentioned,
goes into detail about what you do when you find human remains but doesn't... I don't think it's said
anything it laid out any plan for what you do when you find artifacts that aren't human remains. I mean,
do you have any idea of what happens in that case? Do they stop the project and do a really detailed site
investigation to see if there are additional artifacts? Or what happens at that point? Or I don't know if
the applicant has their cultural resources person here that can answer that, but it's just unclear to me
since the plan isn't laid out as far as I recall in the cultural resources report. I guess we're dependent
upon whatever regulations apply there and I don't know what those are at this point.
Clark Close:
Yeah. I'll let the applicant respond.
Phil Olbrechts:
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 25 of 26
Okay. All right. Yeah. Yeah.
Clark Close:
Certainly have a professional archeologist onsite at the time and certainly they have rules and guidelines
to follow up with.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Okay, thanks Mr. Close. Appreciate your comments. All right. Let the applicant have final
word there. If you have anything you can add on the cultural resources issue, that'd be great, otherwise
I can just look up the regulations myself. But any clarification you have would be great.
Alicia Stedman:
Absolutely. So the firm that did the cultural and resources report is not on the call today. I apologize
about that. But we can get more detail from them on it. But most likely we'll be follow... If there is
artifact, more artifacts or anything that is not human remains, we would still follow state regulations for
whatever those procedures are moving forward at that point. The cultural resources report as stated a
couple times, digging even only just one foot down, we will have somebody on site so that'll be pretty
much for the whole site as we're doing any sort of groundwork.
Other than that, I think I would just like to close by thanking the community for their input on how we
can make this a great project for not only the Kennydale Neighborhood, Renton and [inaudible 01:09:11]
neighborhood as a whole. I'd like to extend a big thank you to the city of Renton for working on us with
this design over the last several years, it has been a great partnership and we are really excited to get to
this point and keep going and start the [inaudible 01:09:25] buildings.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Thanks for your comments. With that, I'll go ahead and close the hearing, and it is really
exciting to see what's happening in this part of the city. I mean, it's all the development up there,
Barbee Mills, Quendall Terminals. Now, this project are really well-connected and integrated into the
Shoreline resources there, the Trail Network and access to 405, the whole thing. It's just a really well
planned area and it's great to see it moving. I mean, we have to accommodate urban densities and I
mean that's your baseline. And this is doing about as well as, and anything could be, I think under the
circumstances, the comments about the historical significance of it, I mean, I think basically at this point
we've gone as far as we can legally in terms of what can be required of the site. I mean, under some
circumstances you can require a lot more site investigation where you're doing transects and Lidar, that
kind of stuff, a lot more borings.
But I don't see that there isn't any information in the record that says you need that level of detail. I
mean, in terms of just saying you can't develop there, the city couldn't legally do that if they wanted to
short of purchasing the property. So that's why I was really asking about what happens if you find
artifacts there. I know that the regulations are set up to address that. I just don't recall off the top of my
head what the exact procedures are, and I'll probably take a look before I write my decision on that. So
then in terms of the Barbee mills concerns, that's I guess one of the collateral damage, if you will, of
increased urban development and accommodating that. I mean, more people are going to be using the
trails. You can only require this project to essentially mitigate its proportionate share, which I think the
city has done in requiring improvements to the May Creek Trail on its southern border.
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 26 of 26
That's about as far as you can legally go as well. I know that the Barbee mills people are concerned that
the city's going to go after them if there's more damage done to the NGPA. I mean, I'm the hearing
examiner that holds the appeals on any notices of violation that are issued, that kind of stuff. And I've
seen staff in a lot of hearings. I don't think that they would do something like that, but I mean, you never
know what's going to happen 10 years from now. But I would be very surprised if they actually went
after Barbee Mills because there was a lot more damage due to increased traffic.
I mean, the city may be asking for maybe some plants to be installed to provide greater separation or
some type of fence or something, but I don't think you're going to see any notices of violation, but you
never know. I can't accurately predict that. But beyond that, it's a great project. It looks really good, well
planned. I mean, I think you've all seen all the work that's done on this 67 exhibits. That's a lot of study
that's been done, and it holds up really well. So I'll be issuing that approval within the next couple
weeks. Those of you who have your email addresses on file with Mrs. [inaudible 01:12:15], you'll get a
copy of that email to you. So thanks all for participating tonight and we're adjourned.
Automated:
Recording stopped.