The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-08-093_Report 3--I 6 Steve Botheim, Supervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Kelly Whiting, KC DOT Road Svc Div MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Kris Langley, Traffic Engineer CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Trishah Bull DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Chad Tibbits DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 (party of record) Updated: 01/06/09 PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD Kim Claussen PPMIII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Larry West, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Alex Perlman DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (applicant/ contact) John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS LUSD ' (party of record) Shirley Goll, ASII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 , (party of record) Lisa Dinsmore DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Bruce Whittaker DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (party of record) Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) .. Don & Andrea Gregg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUAOS-093, PP, ECF, AAD Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) (party of record) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 01/06/09 (party of record) Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) 1111 '"""··! ,u! I I I 11m11 i ! ""iif 1 1 II i ! ~ !:: ~ ~ ! !I j i~p l : " ; I, •-~r·;IJ!, "'' ~~, ~ae f , , . ' i ~~ ~ 'C"I j ~ ,l._ I~ '' o 0 ~ ~ i , ~ _\ __ ~ 'a. OA V10 M. PETRIE 811 S 273RD CT DES MOINES, WA 98198 (:253) °"'6-6619 l l/11/l)f ..... '"" -.... -..,,,..,.,.-... ~ l',!/1 _ ...... l!£\lftlll'IJI00."1'1'Mln _, PREIJMlNAAY Pl.AT MAP OF UBEFm' GARDENS ~ ~ ~ ' . ' . ' ! I I I I I I 12424 -~ 1 • ··';-t- "'S•. ~ 'l-c"'----..,11 .... i 1 I I m11111 i11111 1im: nw jl! I i f!i !' .I •I I I·~~ I i ~-1 f h~! 1!;1 llh ! 1!1 I I ~l 'I i ill Ill l! fil -m I ·! ' I ' 11 ll' ' I DA\IIO M. PETRIE 811 S 273RD CT DES MOINES. WA 98198 (253) 946-6619 j IP l Ii 11 1 ' I ; ! I~ 1! 1 .. ,. i:i .': ~ j 8 ~ ....... 1., -- ""' PAEUAINARY STORM DRAINAGE/RECREATION AND SD4FICANT TFIEE FIEPL..ACB.{eN LANDSCAPS f'LANTINQ PLAN FOi> LIBERTY ~ADENS . ~~ f •., h fawf '"r ~l"· _,,. ; ., __ ,,,--1,. -~" -9/ 1cm ''! - 9 ·: ... ·, .. ·;-,.,- ., .,J(' PAELMWrr GRAONa MO STOAtJ DRANAOE PUtN OF LIBERTY GARDENS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTIOl'II 6 TOWNSHP 22 N, RANOE 5 E. WM KNQ COI.M'Y, WASI-SiOTON ·ii<:iJ:' •'" ,,, .-;. ' ,, ~°1':.;, ~"- ""'-- 17 \-·· !?• . 1· . }'. ... ·r;~ _1 +-'J' y ,, ,· -_ \ 1 · ' i2' ', ; i '"'·1"~ \ .·-16, -.' ' \ ~ ·, t"'.i'• --p-+4 L -'"' ·-.11 j )j ,::----~~i,\l ,; .. r. j la--- 19 ·~,.. / 21 -·ro. •.1, -''" ,•f 25 ( '-"' •.• "•" ... -' ..:-;- 1 -. 24 ii '-i ------ ;_i•-'I ·,< , _Jp6'{' .,,. 1#--< /. ~ .. ·,.1.>t (<>JTT": 'X,,i";r"" ,f ..-::-.:,:;...., ~~' '.\ ---"""·--- .,.--- I -""':u: ;~-:r, ' ~ -- i----t---~"----1 QfT, 1T' m~11 0 , n .,, al Jt I I·.:_' ' -m,, +·~··· 1!,,S__:;~)l':!, c-ac•u °"'"' w .. •' / ,,_,_ ·~·-/ T'fP1CAl_-CTSECTl0N_ ~,~":.:'°"' ,/ A~~ ____ _ -,,......~,_;::·.,:-~ ..... , ... I . ~ ,,_ I c!~f l .rs,: -!..G!'.. h ,. ""-~·Hin"'-•("") __,_.,. c..-,u ...... ""· ·-- .,TE'!, ..._....,.. ..... ,,.. _ f ,· c-..::m, -•~<I-'/// -,~ /// ,--c,ow,,,;,u «~•~'---' ,/ -· rRlU[O -/ -""""'--"''""_/ ...,._..~ .... -,---··· Til'1CAL ON-9fE f'l&...IC-OOAD SECOON ___, i ~ !!I li~i lie~ 0 ffi I§~ i b !, ~ iii ~., Iii-~ i'l "'~- I h I, ,1,1,1,111 l!!l 0 1 ! Ji -• d ~111ii !I ~-H 'I I' a"•a i 1 ,h_ l ::, "• ;. ~~ .. ·~-•... ~~ ... \ .... } ! i ll ~1 s I 11 L04P0034 Liberty Garden PARTY OF RECORD REQUEST SLIPS soc Claussen, Kimberly To: Curtis G. Schuster Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens preliminary plat in Renton, WA You will be a party of record. All info will be sent via USPS (not e-mail). Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Curtis G. Schuster [mailto:battlecat@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:17 PM To: Claussen, Kimberly Subject: Liberty Gardens preliminary plat in Renton, WA Kim, Page 1 of 1 I am interested in becoming a party of record on/for the Petrie property (Liberty Gardens). Is this e-mail adequate to get on the mailing list? Our address is as follows: KBS Development Corp. Attn: Curtis Schuster 12320 NE 5th Street Ste# 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Will you please reply to this e-mail to verify that (if) I will be a party of record going forward? I appreciate it. Thanks, Curtis G. Schuster Project Administrator KBS Development Corp. (cell #206-261-2112) 01/25/2006 ·' Mailing Date: February 18. 2005 ' . . .·= ===============================================J~===== Please send me notification of the public hearing and other official notices concerning this application. File No. L04P0034 -Liberty Garden ~~~· print l UJ r 5 ~/( .fJ( /Jr r ,1) ~ /J,/ Address:/J,,.;,;z5"" ,S. ~ C:< c? . /(r,',j *71/ W7, / <f' Cl S-? ·1, • Telephone No.: z?Y:v?S--S--(, 2-,/ C 0 ' ~ --------------------· ------======= Please send me notification of the public hearing and other official notices concerning this application. File No. L04P0034 -Liberty Garden ~:~:~eprint) ·~ > ?}u,u 'illu~ f<~ Address: JL/22S"-//otf-"d{t,i0_ _5,s: · ~ ?cJ4 fJ§7CJ9?-7S:IS- Telephone No.: J Z-':; '2--7--'8'-2-1 & 3 \ t, . / \ ( ) \ _/ / I \ \ I ' I \ • I j =======---=================================--========== Please send me notification of the public hearing and other official notices concerning this application. File No. L04P0034 -Liberty Garden ( Please p · t) ./ Name: I · • · Address: I Y JO I Telephone No.: 1-/J..5 .JJ<Z 55! ~ ! C -1!11~ • !i ,·· ~ ii • ' r \ IC ', !J!j ' ,, A " "' " ,, " 11 ~i1 ' 1: ( '" I.! I i iii -.. i ..._ •.-.,'-,,- " ,, ,, ~ •:~--' ·--1;·--.~ ,, ll:x: L -~ ii ii;.-,• / ''•.~-i,-.... ( ,~ ( ;,' -t \ " ;II ~g~ ;x_1-; ~ \ I ,, 'I \ ~ ,;.o / / \ ,, \ ' f~. / I ' \ i \ I ' J ~~~ ··1 /d \ !B 0 ··i I I s, ' • i ,f ' 'll \ I • ~ ~~ ' " I I " ,. 0 = ===========~=,...,,,-~-~-=-~-,,....,,,-~-~-=-=-~-~-!!"!!-~2---~-!"!!!".,,..,_~-=-=-~-~-=-=-~-=--=-------------------- Please send me notification of the public hearing and other official notices concerning this application. File No. L04P0034 -Liberty Garden ( Please print) Linda Corgiat Name: _________________________________ _ Add 16039 SE 142nd_Place, Renton, WA 98059 , ress: _____________ ...._ __________________ _ Telephone No.: 425-255-3462 C ~ d ri'I • ( "f \ ~ 8 ! A -:;,z~ '{, it ~p .. , i ~ " ·-~.., ' ~ 'JQ,, i! I ~-.;i--. ' ( m ~~ < -~ 1,-f i' I ~ : fflil -:.i 'i~ w \ i M~i A4 's ) ) \ . '!l "D \ ~ t> > ,~~ " ,! ! I ' ;:.· '£ .:i I 'I~ ni /. -.• f ...L~" \ ti;:'"~ ~I' r,:'l i·.- I ~ s; °I\\ , i ~ ~~ w' <;};' ~·'~ -• §i 'll~ " l • 1(1;1 ~) "" • 0 ' -r.1 , >I -, ~ \ 02 1AR ' ,""_-, ~,ti \\_~7~· t \ -, __);:~_-"'·-;~:: Ii! i' ! i ! ! i ! ii!!!' j ,I 11/ ,I, 11,ll 11l ,i 111111,i I ,i ,I 11l ,I,, 11i, II Marshal! MB 1822S SE · I~nden ~ Renton, w~28 UJ St. CJ ·· 9ij059;;:: ci-' 0.. :,,-.J. U..l..'.'.( _..,. c::J. i-- . I I• :z; ii.,i,,i"l,ii,,,i/,J,,J,l,,"il"i,iwl/i,i,,/,i .. 1· 1· I '1· •• l :11! !f 1/ r.,-.. -, . -..) '~ r .-.. ::.. V ~. ~; ·:, -- --~_-)i\llC~ i ··--:':' . •""':'.": ···-:: ···-:: ·····.:: SYGENEX, INC. 130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 Seattle. WA 98188-2990 ,iffl>. ifl.~ ··.r..·5 ~ (( d , ,_ -~i,:;,,.[:oM ~ ' ' tJ'\'f;l/'"1 dli,-.l!l -- ' 4 (i .... --=-- ,.('<' @:LEW'· 9 8 1 8 8 ____ -:-_ -~ ' ,;,,,l._ ti,, r ~ "'-1 ~ 4 J PM % "' _, ~ \/'~o <-0-"'"' •1,_,. ,D \~l s (. ·. '~-:~::, ?, Dept. of Development & Environmental Services -I- Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 ; . //; :, F / / I '0" -'3,!if"..)~~~ \. 2" ~ I' I I I / I I I I I 11 I I I fl I 1· I I I I /I ii n :111 f!J!fll 11 !IHl!I r!Jil11iifi1 l! ! !! ! HHI! l LOZJ ,MES '<U 114TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST ~ELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 98004 l ()/11·\!C.1.!:i\1\1 -~ i,:i.,, \ \---;: ~ "'."' °'.".. Trishah Bull Project Manager II Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 -.,.-_~-;·) ·-::. ii,:, -~~ ... ' ·~ -r-. "cl£~ -_, ·-_I,~ ,_,. m.i:t ' " ·sa,'J i\l ii_-: ( --') ! -- ' C, ),-s i; ~::. 6 ""' o, z i; ~ :2 ( __ ,.. .. - 9_ ,..; 11: nn 'loo 'o/ ..., • ...,,,...,,.. ... 2' "· r - June 20, 2006 Trishah Bull Project Manager II Ill/ ll...h ... Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Qaksdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Dear Ms. Bull: Lo4foo4* RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2006 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES I am writing to request that I be made a Party of Record on King County File Number L04P0034, known as Liberty Garden. Thank you. Sincerely, LOZIER HOMES CORPORATION ~'??/~ Jennifer McCall Land Acquisitions Assistant cc: file LUZIER llO'.vlES CORPORATlON 1203 114TH AVl.::-.'L'L SOL'THEAST BELLEVUE.WA 98004 425,454,8690 LOZll:llC.'!SMM FAX 425-646 8695 MAIN FILE COP"V Minutes APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 72"a Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 David Petrie 811 S 273'' Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal File No.: LUA 08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Southeast of 162"d A venue SE and SE 140th Street Requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95-acre parcel into 36 lots for the eventual development of single-family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. Environmental Appeal of Mitigation Measures Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March I 0, 2009. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 17, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. l: Project file (Yellow file) containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to the review of the nroiect. Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Ap,ieal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 2 Exhibit No. 3: Preliminarv Plat Plan Exhibit No. 5: Grading Plan/Drainage Plan Exhibit No. 7: Topography Map Exhibit No. 9: Project Time Line Exhibit No. 11: Typed Statement along with 3 Photos presented by Gwendolyn High Exhibit No. 13: Road Classification Map Exhibit No. 4: Tree Retention Exhibit No. 6: Aerial Photo Exhibit No. 8: King Countv Zoning Map Exhibit No. 10: Revised Preliminarv Plat Plan Exhibit No. 12: Drainage Report Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney had some preliminary issues to discuss: Mr. Watts was present and would testify during the Appeal portion of this hearing. The reason for requesting the Preliminary Plat portion to be heard first is to have the testimony heard in that hearing incorporated into the relevant part of the Appeal Hearing. There were no objections by the applicant. Relevant portions of the King County Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan were offered to the Hearing Examiner. This project is vested to King County Development Standards, but it is the City's position that procedural rules of the City of Renton apply. A new copy of the appeal, which contains the streamlined specific appeal issues was presented. The appeal now has only three issues. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located in northeast Renton,just south of NE 4th Street (SE 128'h Street) along the eastern border of the City. The site is located on the 14!00 block, 162"" Ave SE is on the west and 16411' Ave SE is on the east. The site is located in King County and City of Renton R-4 zoning district. Both streets along the frontage of the site are unimproved. There is a pending plat just north of the site, Cave Ila. Ms. Timmons went through the Project Time Line with appropriate dates of events in relation to this plat. Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with 6 measures relating to erosion control, drainage, mitigation fees and monitoring for wetland and stream impacts. One appeal was filed by the applicant, which is before the Examiner today. The site is zoned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However, the project is vested to the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and procedures of the King County Code and that the project, once annexed, would follow the rules and procedures outlined by the City of Renton code. The proposed density for the plat would be approximately 4/du per gross acre, the lots range in size from 5,900 square feet to approximately 9,300 square feet. Access to the lots was originally proposed via l 62"d Ave SE with three new internal streets extended from I 62"d Ave SE. There are no minimum lot size or depth requirements in the King County R-4 zone, however the minimum width requirement is 30-feet. The proposed lots would meet the width requirements. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ At1peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 3 The proposed lots appear to provide adequate area to meet front, side and rear setback requirements. All setbacks would be verified at the time of building permit review. There is also adequate area to provide off- street parking of two spaces per each lot. The site is heavily wooded and contains 266 trees of which 8 are proposed to remain. The applicant is in compliance with the County's tree retention requirements. A final tree retention plan will be required prior to utility construction. The landscape plan indicates the installation of 48 trees placed in the front yards of the lots along the interior roads to the site. In addition to street trees. 91 of the 109 replacement trees arc being used to buffer the site along J 64'h and the southern border until the sensitive areas tract is reached. The sensitive areas tract includes a Class III stream as well as a Class II wetland. A detailed landscape plan will be provided and approved prior to plat recording. King County requires 390 square feet ofrecreation space per lot be provided on site, the applicant has proposed recreation space within Tract B, which is also the drainage tract in the amount of20,200 square feet. In addition the applicant has proposed a tot lot, sports field. and a sports court to comply with additional King County Code requirements. The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way. The only access to the site is via 164'h Avenue SE, due to impacts and distances from improved streets, the applicant was required to provide two points of access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety. Originally the access would have been from 162nd Ave SE, which the applicant proposed to make half street improvements on l 62"d from the 13 800 block south to SE 144"' Street. Staff has since recommended that there be an east/west road connection. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat plan that shows entering the plat from l 62"d and continuing east to 164'\ which road would be designated SE 140'" Place. This new road does not affect lot count. As part of the revised drawing the applicant would make half street improvements to 164"' Avenue SE, which is currently 30-feet wide. As previously mentioned, l 62"d Ave SE is encumbered by two separate wetlands plus a Class III stream. The applicant has requested a variance to modify the street frontage improvements to 162"d Ave SE. Development Services Division would review and make a recommendation following the preliminary plat hearing. A Transportation Mitigation Fee was imposed on this project. School impact fees would also be required. The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. Drainage currently runs off from the northeast portion of the site to the Class III stream, water then flows southeasterly to the eastern side of 162"d Ave SE and disburses into sheet flow to the south within the unimproved 162"d Ave SE right-of-way to SE 144th Ave intersection where it then flows by culvert/pipe to the Cedar River and then to Lake Washington. The applicant would collect storrnwater runoff and convey it into a proposed storrnwater vault located in Tract B. The outfall would be conveyed back into the stream channel and leave the property. The applicant has proposed using the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, however the applicant has submitted a Level III downstream drainage analysis, which identifies several drainage problems. The ERC required the applicant to use the 2005 drainage manual for both detention and water quality improvements. The site is served by Water District 90. The property is currently served by public sewer, extension of the existing sewer line would be required to serve the new plat. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ A,.peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page4 Hans Korve, DMP Engineer, 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, 98002 stated that he would be doing the majority of the speaking. Wayne Potter and Dan Balmelli from Barghausen, and Gary Norris a traffic consultant were also present representing the applicant. The new design addresses many of the issues; the primary access comes south along 162"d entering the site at SE 1401h with a second access as required tol64'". This was done to meet the needs of the community and to provide a better product for future buyers. They are working with a new plat to the north, Cavella to provide improvements and secondary access to the entire area. Cavella has agreed to extend 164 1h to the north. The Examiner stated that if this project were to be developed first, there must be a public access that serves Fire and Emergency Services as well as the residents. If Cavella fails to develop, then this project would be responsible for developing that road in its entirety. Mr. Korve stated that they understood that completely. This is a private agreement between the three developments, Liberty Gardens, Cavella and Threadgill. This agreement came about because all three projects needed secondary access in order to do improvements in this area. All three agreed to share the costs of doing the needed improvements on a per lot basis. They believed that the improvements made would eliminate most of the CARE concerns. Drainage issues will be addressed during the SEPA appeal. The Examiner stated that drainage would be needed for this project and while SEPA is out there, he needs to know what the proposed drainage is, and what improvements have been made. Mr. Korve stated that this project is perfectly self sustainable with the 1998 Manual Level III as proposed. King County agreed that the 1998 manual is more than adequate to address the issues. The report was provided as a group review for all three projects. The other two projects are not vested to the 1998 manual, so when Mr. McCarthy did his review it would have been useless to review to a standard for all three that only applied to one. When Mr. McCarthy did the overall review, he used the 2005 manual, did the analysis and made his representations. Mr. McCarthy was out of town and unavailable to be present at the hearing. His findings were in no way intended to be taken in the context that somehow the 2005 manual must apply to this project. That was never his intent and not what his conclusions meant to say and if that is what was understood, he apologizes. That was not his intention. I 0:04 am: 10 minute break was taken. Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Engineers, 18215 72"J Avenue S, Kent 98032 stated that he is the project engineer for both the Liberty Gardens and Cavella projects. They also coordinated with the Threadgill project, which is further to the north, the three projects in conjunction hired Mr. McCarthy to complete a detailed Level III drainage analysis. All three projects had the same downstream drainage issues. A portion of the Threadgill project drains to the same basin. It was beneficial to all three projects to have one study done to analyze the downstream system. Mr. McCarthy modeled the project in existing conditions and developed conditions; came to conclusions as to what the extent of the problems are and recommend options for either correcting the downstream problems or to provide on-site mitigation so the downstream conditions are not exacerbated. On page 3.1 of the study, the mitigation options are outlined; provide on-site detention to King County Level Ill flow control standard, some other options included downstream improvements, some conveyance system upgrades, and some improvements to the water quality system. The three parties all agreed to provide Level Ill on-site detention, King County reviewed this option and agreed to the mitigation. At that time it was proposed to extend l 62"d from the project site to 144'", there is an existing Liberty Gardens Preliminary PlaVA,,peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 5 conveyance ditch and stormwater pond within the right-of-way. With the construction of the roadway, the pond would have been eliminated. It was agreed that that portion of the roadway would be tightlined to provide more room for the road. Now that 162"d is not going to be extended to 144'h the roadway would not require modifications and so the tightlining of the drainage channel is no longer required. This project should be approved under the 1998 standard. Gwendolyn High, CARE, PO Box 2936, Renton 98056 (home: 155 Yakima Ave NE, Renton 98059) [a copy of these minutes and decision will be sent to both addresses] The following concerns are focused on KCC 21a 24, they are details that were not previously elaborated on: -Vegetation Management Plan, there is a requirement for protection of sensitive areas, the site is heavily wooded with 266 significant identified trees of which 8 trees are proposed to be retained. There is no indication regarding the logging practices. The Examiner questioned the trees to be retained. A temporary erosion and sedimentary plan would be required, the code does allow the logging practices to be incorporated. They asked that that be required. -Building setback requirement of 15 feet from all edges of all sensitive area buffers with the exception of impervious ground areas such as driveways and patios may be allowed, subject to special drainage provisions. The west terminus of SE 141" Place cul-de-sac and the driveway of Lot 28 are immediately adjacent, they are the boundary of the wetland buffer for Tract A. There is zero building setback and as such would require adherence to the King County 2005 drainage manual. -As far as they can tell, the access route for the sewer has not been determined, it may have been slated to come up 162nd. Ifit were still proposed to be run through the unimproved right-of-way of 162"d Ave SE code would prevent that, the sewer would have to go through the wetland buffers. -Mr. Foley stated in an earlier email that if the County were to consider a capital project on SE 144th the size, cost and complexity suggest that it would take years for it to be built. Some more limited downstream improvements by the developer might make more sense than an uncertain King County project. A downstream fix seems to be more feasible. This appears to support staffs requirements to using the 2005 Manual. -They were pleased to see that the applicant has proposed access to the site from the south via 164'", it does address quite a lot of the outstanding issues. There are general issues that still exist, there has been no consideration of the traffic flow patterns from the Alpine Nursery. The Transportation Impact Analysis did not consider any of the impacts along 144th, there was no intersection analysis presented. It appears that the TIA should be redone particularly with such significant impact that can be expected on 144'h and the traffic issues there. In light that 136'h would be the other main access, the intersection of 136'h at 156'h was the road that was required as a condition of the earlier plats in order to mitigate the impacts of SE 128'h Ave and 160'h Ave SE. To help that situation, King County required this new road from 160'" to 156th, there was a failing level of service at the intersection of 136th and 156'". With the occupation of some of the new developments, traffic signals were needed and have been added and their classification is now that of an arterial. -Further concerns were with a sidewalk on 162"" there are sections that have sidewalk and sections that do not. There are some issues with people attending events and sporting events that are parking in that area with new drivers, insufficient lighting and no walkways and they would like to have curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire length of l 62"d. -It appears that the improvements along 164'" would be only half street improvements. It can be expected that there would be more parking along that street as well. In the dark, inexperienced drivers with an inadequate Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat!A,,,,eal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 6 parking situation, they would like the staff to review this area and make sure that they have public improvements to meet the actual public needs. -Two further things that the TIA did not consider are the two projects in the King County Transportation Needs Report for pedestrian improvements on 144'". There also is no walkway indicated on the map seen today from the eastern terminus of SE 144th cul-de-sac to the middle school. Previously there was a walkway proposed and it does not seem to be on the map now. Mr. Korve stated that that walkway was omitted when the new internal roads were designed. Ms. High continued with regard to the possibility of increased parking and access to the high school ball fields and the park near 164th Ave SE. King County agreed that the increased parking and access to the high school would make the TIA's so far submitted obsolete. Patricia Payne-Gammell, 16043 SE 142nd Place, Renton 98059 stated that she resides just southwest of the subject site. A group of neighbors filed an appeal on the extension of 162nd to the south because of the large ditch that travels down the right-of-way and joins the ravine of the plat and comes back into the drainage ditch on 162nd. Most of the concerns in the appeal have been taken care of if the extension of the road is not permitted. They are concerned about the impact of the drainage ditch and any of the site water that might enter this drainage ditch. The subject site is north of Mr. Moore's property (the western large lot at the southwest corner of the subject site), the Class III creek flows across the subject site, enters Mr. Moore's site and swings back to the west toward 162nd street, and if any water is added to this small ditch, it would overflow and flood the corner Mr. Moore's basement. Gary Norris, PO Box 547, Preston 98050 stated that he is the traffic engineer representing the applicant. He prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis for Threadgill, Cavella and Liberty Gardens. The date on the report was October 2006, conditions and times have changed and development proposals in the area are increasing and would have impacts on any analysis that would have been done at that time. This Traffic Analysis was not required as part of the typical requirements of King County. The relevant section of the King County Code would be the Intersection Standards, which requires a development that is impacting an intersection by 30 or more pm peak hour trips to conduct an analysis and determine appropriate mitigation. None of the three plats involved in this analysis met that requirement individually. The County did ask the development to provide this analysis to facilitate an evaluation of the impacts of the projects on the high accident locations and the evaluation of the potential extension of SE 136'h street from 162nd over and across to l 68'h Avenue. That was the basis of the analysis done. In no case was there any consideration that the mitigation that would be required for impacted intersections or deficient level service standards, those were all accommodated through the concurrency and the MPS system elements of the King County Code. The effect of this document was to evaluate and determine that a secondary access would be beneficial to addressing the impacts to the high accident locations. Subsequently the desire to extend 162•" and now the connection to 164'" was a result of this analysis. In terms of the King County requirements, there would be no need to redo or update the Traffic Analysis. This plat does not generate more that 30 p.m. peak hour trips through a specific intersection. Concurrency is the King County analysis for different zones throughout the King County arterial network which they maintain on an ongoing basis. The concurrency analysis is constantly being updated with the new development as it occurs. At the time of this application, they were concurrent and so they were allowed to proceed. A development is not allowed to proceed through the review process if it does not meet concurrency. If concurrency standards changed, it would not affect this project because it was already vested into the system. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Ai,peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 7 If the system should become non-concurrent the impacts of this plat have already been considered and is included in that analysis, it is still vested and concurrent as long as the application continues to move forward. If the application drops, then it drops out of the system and the applicant must reapply. The high accident locations have been identified as being along 1601h at SE 128th, 162"d Ave SE at SE 128'h and l 64'h Ave SE at SR900. Neil Watts, Director Development Services stated that he had reviewed the files and all the included reports. Typical trips made from a single family house peak hour are one per house that would mean 36 peak hour trips from this site. A real quick estimate of distribution would show approximately 70% of the trips going north and 30% would be heading south, which after doing the math that would be below the threshold. The street design requirements become somewhat complex due to several projects with similar requirements and overlapping requirements. Code requirements would be all adjacent right-of-ways, 162"d, 164'", all the interior streets with curb, gutter and sidewalks. On the adjacent existing streets the code would be half street improvements. The King County standards allow the reviewing jurisdiction to do some level of off-site improvements, this project would also require the extension of 162"d to the north to 137"' Place with half street improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalk along one side of the street. The new interior streets would need to be fully paved with curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides of the street. In the City of Renton, there are no variances for street modifications, they do modifications, this would be a modification and not a variance. This would typically be done as a staff modification prior to the hearing, however, since they did not have this particular submittal they have not done that. If the Examiner elects to keep the record open, they would provide a written modification from staff addressing 162"d and would be able to support that modification for any type of roadway improvements south SE 140"' Place. That would be contingent of no driveways coming off of that street. They would request a condition that no driveways be provided to any of these lots so that there would be no driveway access from either 1641h or 162"d, all driveways would access from the internal streets. There have been some concerns about parking on 164'h, there will most likely be some parking on that street with people going to playfield facilities at the high school. There would only be parking on one side of l 64"'. In working with the project to the north the intent is to continue the extension of 164"' to the north to the end of the other development site. Beyond that the lots are already developed and there does not appear to be an opportunity to extend the road beyond that point. The sewer would be extended up l 64'h_ Regarding the King County Manual, for a fully wooded site such as this site appears to be no difference in amount of detention or water quality requirements between the '98 manual and the 2005 manual. However, there are· some procedural differences between the two manuals, there also is a broader range of options that are allowed in the 2005 manual. The 2005 manual is also closer to being consistent with the City's NP DES requirements. It was strongly recommended that that condition be kept in place. The City's policy for the east plateau area has been for everything to go to the highest level of requirements available, which is the 2005 Manual. There are downstream drainage impacts from this site and this community has identified what the acceptable realm of environmental impacts for drainage is in this area. The 1998 Manual does not suffice for proper environmental protection for these community standards. Staff would not oppose the Hearing Examiner making this a plat condition. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 8 Regarding the Issaquah School District Impact Fee, in the body of the report it was listed to be paid at the time of building permit. The Impact Fees are, however established by City Code and code specifies that those fees are to be paid at building permit stage. (Condition #7) They also recommended that the street design include a pedestrian linkage between the most southerly cul-de- sac over to 164'". Tract E was previously located between proposed Lots 18 and 19 and with the new interior roads, that access would now be located between Lots 19 and 20. They do recognize that there are challenges in this neighborhood as it develops and with the existing intersections, as the volumes increase there will probably be a likelihood for more accidents. The City will continue to make adjustments as they can. The purposes of the Traffic Mitigation Fees are to do the offsite improvements. There are some challenges for the intersections and pedestrian walkways. Regarding the missing gap on the sidewalk on 162"'1 , this project should be conditioned to bring the sidewalk all the way up to 137 1 h. The streets in this area have lots of capacity. Most of the time the level of service on these streets would be A, there may be times in the day that they would come down to B or C. On 164'" it will be Level Service A and it will remain that level of service. The neighbors are used to seeing very few cars on that street, with the change of the roadway system, the new development and the development to the north, they will see a significantly higher percentage of cars on these streets. These are acceptable levels of service and acceptable capacity to accommodate this development. No offsite improvements are being recommended. Doris Yepez, 16444 SE 135th Street, Renton 98059 stated that she lives north of Liberty High School and she walks all around that area. She has walked on 164'" from Liberty High School where the ball fields are located. Back of the ball fields there is a dirt path that goes through to 164th, she was wondering what kind of improvements would be made in that area, there are a lot of students that walk in that area. There is a development called Starwood there is a lot of erosion and ruts in the path. The path has become so eroded with large ruts that it is now useable, there is a lot of water coming down that direction now. The Examiner stated that the dirt path would become a half street with a curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side. Mr. Korve stated that the Liberty Lane sidewalk extension to the north according to King County does not require offsite improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalks, they usually do the fire access, the appropriate amount of pavement and then a shoulder. They request that they be held to the vested road standards for offsite improvements. There was some discussion as to improvements to the roadways, some would require full City standards, there may be some agreements between this project and Cavella, but if a secondary access is necessary, then this project must provide that road. That means that this development would be responsible for not only a pathway but actually a real sidewalk, curb, street and gutter in that location. Mr. Korve stated that it is the offsite portions, the areas not fronting this project under the King County road standards, once you leave your site, the level of improvements drops from the full urban frontage, which is the project's responsibility, to a lesser standard of safe walking. You still have to provide extended gravel or an 8- foot paved shoulder or something like that. The Examiner stated that 162nd would have to be developed up to SE 137'h Place. There needs to be fire access, domestic access and pedestrian access. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 9 Mr. Watts stated that there were a number of ways to cost share. Mr. Korve stated that with the clarification, they are in total agreement. The subject of re-introducing Tract E was proposed, the applicant would oppose such a condition on the basis that there is no need for this pedestrian connection now that 140th Place has been extended. Any children walking to or from the park or school would be going north and it is a short distance to go along the interior sidewalks. There is the security factor as well. Dan Balmelli stated that regarding the drainage concerns of CARE, first, a portion of the email from Steve Foley bringing up the potential for the offsite mitigations. Those were discussed with the County's staff and that was just some of the comments from Steve and the County staff, as a result of the final proposal and the complexity of the possible offsite proposals, they chose to propose the Level III, the County staff all reviewed and agreed to that mitigation and it became a condition. That issue has been addressed adequately. Second, the concern with 162nd, since 162"" has been eliminated most ofCARE's concerns also have been removed. Their drainage will discharge into the channel at a very reduced and restricted rate under the Level Ill detention, it will re-enter the drainage channel and the existing pond further south of where most of their concerns with Mr. Moore's property. They are not required to mitigate for existing conditions. Rocale Timmons had three items: I. Pedestrians and potential students might not only travel north to Liberty High School, they might also travel south of 144'h to the high school and elementary school in this area. 2. The applicant made reference to the building setbacks for the sensitive area tract. King County Code specifies that the driveway or access be setback 15-feet, but that special drainage considerations must be made for those areas or driveways that are abutting within that 15-foot setback. 3. Regarding the wetland at the NW portion, assuming that the southern portion of 162nd /\ ve SE is foregone, the applicant will need to submit a revised mitigation plan for impacts to that upper Class II wetland and buffer. Hearing was adjourned at 12:00 for lunch Hearing resumed at 1 :30 pm The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing was adjourned for lunch at 12:00 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit# I. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 10 5. The subject site is located along portions of undeveloped rights-of-way. It is generally northeast of the intersection of 162nd Avenue Southeast and SE 142nd Street if those streets were extended. The eastern boundary is 164th Avenue SE if that street were extended. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (Single Family -4 dwelling units/acre). The subject site is vested under King County's zoning which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation but the standards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against King County standards in effect when the application was submitted on December 29, 2004. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5398 enacted on August 11, 2008. 9. The subject site is approximately 8.95 acres of389,862 gross square feet. The subject site is approximately 655 feet wide (east to west) by 594 feet deep. I 0. The subject site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest with an average slope of about 15 to 20 percent. A Class II wetland and Class Ill creek are located in the southwest comer of the site. A Class II wetland is located offsite to the northwest. 11. The Class III stream requires a 25 foot buffer since it is non-salmonid bearing. The wetland requires a 50 foot buffer which encompasses the stream and stream buffer. In order to protect these critical areas the ERC required that they not be available for separate sale and that each abutting owner or the Homeowners Association have an undivided interest in the property. A 15-foot building setback line was also established from the edge of the preserved areas. 12. The tree inventory found approximately 266 significant trees on the subject site. The applicant proposes retaining approximately three percent of those trees and planting an additional 157 trees. 13. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 36 lots and 6 tracts. The lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet to 9,350 square feet. 14. Access would be provided by 162nd Avenue along the west boundary of the site and then by three new internal roads. Proposed SE 140th Place would run east into the site and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Prior to the cul-de-sac 163rd Avenue SE would branch off to the south and that in turn would intersect with Proposed SE 141 st Place that would run east and west with both ends terminating in cul-de-sac turnarounds. 15. Proposed Lots 1 to 8 would run east to west across the north property line generally north of Proposed SE 140th Place. Proposed Lots 9, 10, 11 and 17 to 21 would be located along the eastern property line with access via two cul-de-sacs and pipestems or easements. Proposed Lots 28 to 36 would form a two- tier block oflots in the west central area of the plat. The remaining lots would be clustered around the cul-de-sacs east and south of 163rd and 141 st, respectively. 16. Staff has recommended that SE 140th Place be continued to the east as a through-street that would connect to 164th Avenue SE. An exhibit was submitted showing that roadway extended across the site. The lot count would remain at 36 even with the roadway extension. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 11 17. Code requires the planting of one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage. That would be approximately 48 trees but might change if additional roads are developed as proposed by staff. The applicant proposes additional tree plantings in the drainage/recreation area. 18. The density for the plat would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre using King County standards. 19. The subject site is located within the Issaquah School District. Developments within that school district are required to pay an impact fee on a per lot basis. The fee is accessible at the time of building permit approval and is $6,021.00 per lot. 20. The development will increase traffic approximately IO trips per unit or approximately 360 trips for the 36 single family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 36 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. Traffic analysis indicates that intersections can handle the additional traffic. King County's applicable concurrency standards do not require changes in the proposal or more specific traftic analysis since no one intersection will handle more than 30 afternoon/evening peak hour trips. Staff recommended that the applicant pay the City's mitigation fees for traffic. King County does require the identification of"High Accident Locations" (HAL) and they were identified. To help moderate impacts the City has recommended that traffic be better dispersed by opening a connection through the plat to the east, to 164 1h. This would allow traffic to flow out of the plat along two roads rather than just the western 162"'. Separately, the applicant has entered into an agreement with two other proposed plats in the area for joint development of access road 162"'. Staff has recommended that the roadways meet the King County standards although a modification or variance may be appropriate. 21. Storrnwater control is an issue for the subject site. There are existing flooding problems that were identified in the SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis (McCarthy, June 15, 2007) and his subsequent mitigation suggestions (March 3, 2008). Those two documents discussed and recommended Level 3 Flow Controls and references are to standards in the 2005 Design Manual. See a fuller discussion in the companion SEPA Appeal Decision issued as part of this concurrent Plat and Environmental review. Driveways are overtopped by storm water and third party property floods serving as a de facto storrnwater detention pond during storm events. Storrnwater would be contained in a vault on Tract B and then directed back to its natural channels, the creek and wetland. 22. Sewer service will have to be provided to the proposed plat. A 15-inch line is located at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street and a 12-inch line is located in 160th. An 8-inch line meeting City standards will be required. 23. Water District 90 serves the site. A domestic water line will have to be extended to serve the site. 24. Neighbors were concerned about traffic and storrnwater impacts of this development on the surrounding community. There was concern about parking and impacts on the school. Flooding, identified above, was an issue. The natural features and trees were also presented as an issue. 25. The applicant noted that the McCarthy drainage documents were prepared for three projects including the subject application. They maintain that it does not mean that the recommendations in those documents for imposition of 2005 Design Manual are applicable to the subject proposal, only that it was not practical to separately address the needs of each project based on its own vesting timeframe. CONCLUSIONS: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Ai,peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 12 I. If the applicant complies with all the requirements under both King County and City regulations for sanitary sewer, domestic drinking water, stormwater control systems and access improvements the proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. In this case, things are complicated by the applicant's reliance on older King County regulations with the overlay in some instances of City requirements such as impact fees. While the applicant is entitled to protection, as it were, of older regulations that vest certain standards. that does not mean a plat which might exacerbate flooding problems can escape appropriate review. Whether one calls them environmental mitigation or making sure the plat provides for and accommodates the potential negative effects of its development, a plat can only be approved if the applicant submits a plat with appropriate features. There are different standards that apply to development. Some such as density, lot size, lot width and depth, building height and setbacks could be considered aesthetic. These factors determine how spacious lots are, the separation between homes, how large homes can be, aspects of development that are termed bulk standards. Then there are other standards that affect public safety or protect from property damage -stormwater control, erosion control, fireflow and safe drinking water and sanitary sewers. Then there are factors that might be considered a combination of aesthetics and safety -road width, sidewalks and street lighting. A paved street provides access for residents but it also needs to provide a safe durable and wide enough surface to allow emergency vehicles access without getting bogged down in mud or hampered by parked cars (safety) besides cutting down on dust and runoff(aesthetic). 2. In other words, this plat must provide appropriate stormwater controls. A report commissioned by this applicant specifically identified controls from the 2005 Design Manual. The applicant apparently chose a report that dealt with three projects and together the projects' impacts were reviewed and analyzed. There is no way to pull out or tease from these reports the separate measures that this applicant now expects to use, older, potentially less stringent measures, from those found in these reports. The reports specifically identified measures to assure that downstream flooding, flooding that affects roads, driveways and ponds on third-party property, is not worsened. The critical issue is that this plat cannot be approved if flooding might be exacerbated. This plat cannot be approved ifit does not serve the public use and interest. This plat is held to the standards enunciated in the two McCarthy reports. The stormwater record and public use and interest is based on following those recommendations. The City Council should not approve this plat if those measures are not followed. The newer 2005 Manual reflects changes that overcome weaknesses. flaws or limitations in the older standards. The newer standards must be followed. 3. Similarly, as discussed in the companion Appeal portion of this report, sedimentation occurs when erosion occurs. Flooding problems associated with clearing nearly eight acres will be accompanied by erosion. Erosion should be controlled by the most modern methods of control. Those are contained in the Department of Ecology's most recent manuals. The applicant's plat cannot serve the public use and interest if wetlands are jeopardized by flooding which is accompanied by erosion. 4. The best management practices need to be applied to this project or it will not serve the public use and interest. Again, things like lot sizes and building heights and bulk change in response to market demands, density preferences and aesthetics. But current knowledge of flooding and erosion and how to best handle them are very different issues. Life safety and the functioning of wetlands are critical issues that need to be properly addressed. This plat can only be approved if those consequences are appropriately solved. 5. Staff reviewed traffic for the proposal and determined that under King County regulations as well as the need for two points of entry, that traffic safety would be addressed by connecting a through street from east to west from 162nd to 164th. That appears appropriate. It provides better access for residents and Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Arpeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 13 certainly better access for both police and fire services. Separately, the applicant has entered into an agreement with two other proposed plats in the area for joint development of access road 162nd. Whether those agreements come to fruition or how they are timed will not eliminate the need for the access if this plat were to be occupied. Therefore, in order to approve this plat the appropriate roads that connect this plat with surrounding arterials will be required prior to sale or occupancy. 6. The proposal does appear to otherwise satisfy the bulk standards such as lot size, width and density required. It meets the tree schedules required. It will be protecting the natural areas if storrnwater and erosion are appropriately handled. 7. The development of the subject site is appropriate given the Comprehensive Plan's objectives and the appropriate Zoning Code. The development will increase the tax base of the City. The new lots will provide additional housing choices for new residents and will protect the valuable amenities on the subject site. 8. The is no doubt that developing an eight acreage site that has been forested and undisturbed in the main will change the character of the site and the surrounding community. These changes were clearly anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning were adopted for the area and this site in particular. There will be more traffic and more comings and goings by new residents. Housing for new residents is a vital part of any planning process and changes result when property is finally developed. 9. In conclusion, the City Council should approve the proposed 36-lot plat subject to the conditions noted below. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 36-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 200 I Storm water Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction. 2. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements." 3. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC as modified in the appeal decision 4. The applicant shall provide an east/west road connection from 162nd Ave SE to 164'h Ave SE in order to create highly connective road network. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187 as amended (1993 KCRS). 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan, depicting an east/west road connection from 162nd Ave SE to I 64'" Ave SE, which is also consistent with all preliminary plat review criteria. The revised plat plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 14 Development Services Division and the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to engineering plan approval. 6. Both frontages, 162"d Ave SE and 164'' Ave SE, for the full length of the property shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162"d Ave SE shall be designed and constructed to meet the urban nei~hborhood collector standard. No lot shall have a driveway entering off 162"d Ave SE or 164' Ave SE. 7. The applicant shall create pedestrian paths and links as determined by Staff. 8. The Applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 9. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots= $25,839.00) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. 10. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat recording. 11. The applicant shall pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160, D, tot eh City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $216,756.00 ($6,021.00 x 36 lots= $216,756.00). ****************************************************************************************** The hearing reopened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at I :35 p.m .. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Appeal LUA 08-093 Appellant: Hans Korve Ann Nielsen: Representing the City of Renton Ann Nielsen stated the appeal has been modified. The issues before the Examiner today are in Subsection B, 1, 4 and 5, those are the three remaining issues. The following Exhibits were entered: Exhibit No. A: Aooeal Timeline Exhibit No. B: Vicinitv Map - Exhibit No. C: Preliminarv Plat Plan Exhibit No. D: Drainage Plan (2008) Exhibit No. E: Aerial Photo Exhibit No. F: Topography Map Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 15 Exhibit No. G: Plat Plan (March 16, 2008) Exhibit No. H: Revised A eal Letter Hans Korve stated that items 1, 4 and 5 are the only items they are dealing with. No. l deals with the use of the DOE manual for stormwater and erosion control. They are vested to the King County 1998 Manual for erosion control. There was nothing in the environmental study that showed that the vested document was insufficient. Where there is an acceptable level of service, in the case of the 1998 manual, temporary erosion control is very well covered. There is nothing unique about this site, there is nothing in the environmental review document produced by the City indicating that there is anything unique and special about this site that would require using the 200 l DOE manual to remedy. Part of staff's original presentation was that they would need an MPDES Permit which would supersede what is happening at the site. DOE would be monitoring the site during the development. They would like to have the vested documents apply to the project. Using SEPA to undo vested rights seems to be wrong. No. 4 regards the maintenance and surety devices which is the driving force behind the appeal. King County code clearly allows bonding. He did not know if this was a policy statement as opposed to a development regulation by staff, they feel that the King County Code allows for bonding and they would like to be allowed to bond as per King County Code. There are no probable adverse environmental impacts that would justify the removal bonding as a viable means of taking care of maintenance, surety and performance issues with the plat. There was no discussion of this adverse environmental impact in the environmental study produced by the City. SEPA requires identification of the environmental impact and then show the mitigation. This issue was not covered. No. 5 covers the use of the King County manual. The appellant's engineer pointed out that the 1998 vs. 2005 manual are virtually the same in a forested condition. He agrees to that, the point remains that the use of SEPA to undo the vested rights is not appropriate. There would be no adverse harm is using the 1998 manual, they arc virtually the same. The drainage facilities would be designed to the 1998 manual, King County acknowledges the 1998 manual more than sufficient to address the environmental impacts and it is also covered in the King County staff report, page 4 states that the drainage issues will be addressed through Level III flow control of the 1998 manual. Ann Nielsen stated that as previously stated prior to the Preliminary Plat hearing, she would like to have incorporated the relevant portions of the facts and testimony that were given. She would be relying on the information that was given during the Preliminary Plat stage and that they be incorporated into the Appeal hearing for purposes of factual testimony and evidence for the appeal. She would present a summary to wrap up the Appeal hearing. Regarding the surety issue, the City does concede that the appellant is clearly vested to the King County Development Standards, however, they have always maintained the position that it is the procedural roles of the City of Renton that apply here. With respect to the surety devices, the King County code speaks to financial guarantee. Mr. Korve is relying on these particular provisions to request that they be considered a bond as proposed to the satisfied surety, which is more in line with what the City of Renton requires. This is a procedural issue, there is nothing in the King County Code provisions that would lend itself to being a development code and as such the City would submit that as a procedural aspect of this should be compelled to submit to the City of Renton procedures. It was her understanding that there is a City of Renton ordinance that specifically requires a set aside or surety in lieu of a bond. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 16 The difference between the two is that cash is set aside in a bond and not available to the developer as opposed to getting a bond from a bonding company where you pay 3% of a million dollars, so they are only out the 3%, it's like buying an insurance policy. Regardless of what the times are, it has been the City's policy to require a surety device, which has been through years of experience where a bond has been found to be insufficient. The nature of this particular plat is such that there is going to be a higher level of environmental concerns and the issue of a five year monitoring of the wetland versus three years. There is a higher level of environmental concern here, as a result this was tied into a SEPA condition, and this is purely a procedural issue and they would ask the Examiner to render a decision with that information in mind. There was discussion between Ms. Nielsen and The Examiner as to whether this matter was truly a SEPA condition or purely a procedural issue and how it should be handled. In the environmental checklist that was submitted, the 10/1312005 report, it talks about proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impact, if any. A further section reads; A Level I drainage analysis prepared by DMP engineering and a Level Ill drainage report prepared by Ed McCarthy are available for review. These reports analyzed the required onsite detention requirements as well as analyzing the downstream drainage basin. The stormwater detention manual requires that the project engineer analyze impacts to downstream drainage systems and make recommendations with respect to any proposed measures to improve offsite drainage. The last sentence reads: please review the drainage reports for any potential required measures to help reduce or control surface water impacts. Ms. Nielsen continued to read from the McCarthy report regarding roadway flooding along SE 144th which was considered to be a severe flooding problem according to King County Standards. Between the intersection of 162nd Ave SE and 160th Ave SE the driveway culverts along the ditch to the north side of SE 144th Street, would cause the north side of SE 144'h street to become overtopped posing a threat of unpaved access due to driveway edges. This would cause an unsafe condition. There are several drainage issues emanating from this development. There are broader options in the 2005 manual and they are more consistent with the NPDES regulations. It further indicates that the City generally in the east plateau area has consistently used the 2005 manual. Given the particular nature of this project, the lower manual that they are vested to does not adequately address the specific environmental issues that are unique to this particular site. She asked that the Hearing Examiner to focus on the testimony and evidence that was presented by Mr. Watts to show that this particular site has specific unique environmental impacts that necessitate the mitigated conditions that were proposed, namely the elevation of the 1998 stormwater manual to 2005 standard along with the erosion control manual up to DOE standards. Mr. Korve stated that staff has brought up the King County Staff Report and King County Findings and yet ignored or discounted the actual report as it was presented to the Examiner that they believe the 1998 manual was more than enough to address the issues, it was in their MONS and in the staff report. The concerns of the community are valid and important, that is not a justification for imposing a SEPA condition, the City is required to indicate in their Environmental Review what the issues are, how they are adverse and significant and then how this proposed condition mitigates that. The simple statement that this is a site with wetlands is not a compelling argument for circumventing applicable code, many sites and King County and Renton have wetlands, there is nothing unique and special about this one. The NPDES that they are required to adhere to as part of the stormwater controls is beyond City regulations it Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 17 goes to State and National regulations that are used in implementing the National Pollution Stormwater controls. Those items of stormwater control will be addressed through the NPDES process, DOE will have monitoring crews out, there is a person assigned to the site who will be available at all times. The Examiner stated that the issue appears to be whether they want to come back and try policing after the erosion has occurred or make sure that the project complies with current standards that address the problem. However, this plat must pass muster today, he must make a recommendation to the Council that with the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC are addressed and covered appropriately. Storm water and erosion control are met by this plat and will not exacerbate problems. Mr. Korve stated that these issues are not actually the main issues of their appeal. The key issue is the surety, a financial situation. It is in the King County code, it is an adopted ordinance and is part of their development regulations, there whole section on wetlands and how to mitigate and how to assure that wetlands are mitigated, maintained and monitored refers to Section 27a, which is the surety section; that is not a policy statement, it is a Code. The Examiner stated that he did not know if the Courts had established what vesting covers, it usually is density, zoning, yards and things like that. He did not know if it deals with monetary issues or not. He may ask the City Attorney for clarification in this matter. He is not sure it is an issue he can decide The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2: l O p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: l. The appellant, Hans A. Korve, filed an appeal of an environmental determination issued by the City on December 15, 2008. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 3. The appellant is Planning Manager for a proposed plat known as Liberty Gardens. The plat would divide approximately 8.95 acres into 36 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes. 4. The subject site is located east of 162nd Avenue SE and north of SE 144th Street. 5. The subject site was annexed to the City on August 11, 2008 by Ordinance 5398. Prior to annexation the property was under the jurisdiction of King County. 6. Just prior to the Public Hearing the appellant amended their appeal and limited the appeal issues to three primary issues. The ERC imposed six conditions in its Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. The appellant ultimately challenged three of those conditions. The challenged conditions, numbered per the original determination, are: "I. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 18 and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction. 4. The applicant shall provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside lei/er) (italics in original), prior to plat recording, set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost, to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years. 5. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. 11 7. A major contention of the appellant is that this project was initiated when the property was located in King County and that the appellant is entitled to develop the subject site under land use rules and regulations that were in effect when the application was submitted. The application was submitted on December 29, 2004. 8. The appellant also maintains that SEPA, specifically, RCW 43.2JC.240 prohibits the imposition of SEPA mitigation conditions if the impacts generated by the project are already addressed by existing regulations. "Furthermore, Subsection (4) A states that a development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the municipality, through the planning and environmental review process under Chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and : '(b) The legislative body of the municipality has designated as acceptable certain levels of service or development standards required or allowed by chapter 36. 70A RCW"' 9. The appellant argued that the King County 1998 Storm Water Design Manual provided applicable standards for both stormwater mitigation as well as erosion control measures. Those were the standards applicable to stormwater and erosion when the proposal was submitted on December 29, 2004 under which the appellant argues they are vested. I 0. Finally, the appellants argue that the manner in which the ERC imposed financial guarantees to assure the proposed wetland and buffer mitigation improvements were accomplished did not include methods permitted by the King County Code, namely bonding. The claim is the appellant is vested in this method or, at least, can avail themselves of this method. 11. A downstream drainage analysis was prepared for the appellant's project as well as two nearby parcels. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 19 The three projects are Threadgill, Cave Ila and Liberty Gardens, the appellant's project. The analysis is titled "SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis" (Ed McCarthy, June I 5, 2007). 12. The Cover Page of the SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis, hereinafter Analysis includes the following text: "Prepared for: Mr. Dave Petrie 811 So. 273rd Ct. Des Moines, WA 98198." 13. Page 1-1 states: "The conveyance route is downstream from three proposed single-family residential developments that are current under drainage review at King County DOES. These developments include Threadgill Plat, Liberty Gardens, and Cavella." (emphasis supplied) Page 2-8 SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis (Ed McCarthy, June 15, 2007): "Roadway flooding along SE 144th Street would be considered as 'severe roadway flooding problem' ( enclosed in quotes in original) according to King County standards (King County Department of Natural Resources, January 2005) due to the following conditions: Between the intersections of 162nd Avenue SE and 160th Avenue SE driveway culverts along the ditch on the north side of SE 144th Street would become overtopped. posing a threat of unsafe access due to indiscernible driveway edges. Floodwater over the driveways on the north side of SE 144th Street between 160th Avenue SE and CB-I IA would be deeper than 0.5 foot posing a severe impediment to emergency vehicle access." 14. Driveways, according to the report, would be overtopped by 0.7 feet. The report also indicates that overflow from catch basins is conveyed to the west in the north side of the roadway until it reaches low lying private property where it settles. Neighbors reported this property does get flooded. 15. Ed McCarthy submitted a letter or report to King County DOES on March 3, 2008. It was intended as a follow up to his initial report with suggested mitigation measures. It states in its opening paragraph: "The results of the hydraulic assessment I prepared for the downstream conveyance system (June 15, 2007) predicted flooding along the north side of SE 144th Street and at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE. There has also been residential flooding at SE 142nd Place, which is adjacent and tributary to the downstream system of the proposed developments. After consideration of the basin and downstream conditions. I offer the storrnwater mitigations described below for the proposed plat to address existing flooding problems along SE 144th Street and at the end of SE 142nd Place." 16. He then describes conditions that could aggravate "an existing severe flooding problem." (Page 2, Para Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Ai,peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 20 I) Continuing at Paragraph 2: "On the other hand, adopting Level 3 flow control would mitigate impacts of the projects on this downstream flooding area. The predicted I 00-year stage in the downstream flood flow path would not be increased. In light of the downstream conditions, providing Level 3 detention standards is an appropriate stormwater mitigation for each of the proposed developments." Paragraph 3 contains the following statement: "These estimated volumes do not include a factor of safety which would increase the required volumes ... " 17. His letter concludes with this text "Please note that the applicants for the proposed plats willingly offer the mitigations that would benefit the property owners along SE 142nd Place provided that the mitigations can be designed and implemented without incurring unreasonable delays that may be confronted in acquiring construction easements, permits, or other construction-related authorizations." 18. There had been an earlier determination by the ERC and an appeal was filed by neighbors of that determination. The City rescinded that decision and the appeals were voided at that time. Therefore, no part of this decision is directed at the earlier determination or appeal. CONCLUSIONS: I. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870,880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC including conditions it found necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development on City services and facilities will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed in part and reversed in part. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face ofreason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document. an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ A.,peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF Apri I 28, 2009 Page 21 Significant. (I) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity .. .Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the terrn "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-terrn effects. (WAC 197-11-060( 4)( c )). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060( 4 )( d)). In the current case, the Drainage Report and Mitigation letter specifically refers to the 2005 Design Manual. Page references are to the manual. Real flooding occurs under existing conditions and would increase with this development. 7. The appellant maintains that the King County standards that were applicable to this project when it was submitted on December 29, 2004 are controlling under the vested rights doctrine. This office has to disagree. The appellant is correct when it comes to certain aspects of review. At the same time, the ERC is entitled to review the record including evidence of flooding and potential mitigation measures. The ERC is especially permitted to rely on documents and reports submitted by the appellant or appellant's representatives. The report and mitigation documents submitted by the appellant or on behalf of the appellant recommend Level 3 of the 2005 King County Manual. While those documents may not have acknowledged or distinguished the appellant's vested rights, they appear to recommend the most appropriate method of dealing with stormwater where critical, life-safety issues were identified or where property rights were affected. The appellant and other property owners apparently chose the combined report for three projects, Threadgill, Cavella, and the appellant's own Liberty Gardens. Each developer submitted applications at a different time and potentially vested in different requirements. The appellant's consultant did not distinguish the different projects or their different submission dates. Rather the review suggested appropriate measures that would not exacerbate storm water issues that resulted in overtopped culverts, flooded driveways and ponding on private property. 8. So whether one looks at whether or not vested rights guarantees the application of old standards or whether or not King County Code takes precedence over SEPA review, there is no escaping that the recommendations submitted on behalf of the appellant recommend the imposition of Level 3 conditions -2005 Manual. The ERC properly considered this evidence and the appellant failed to demonstrate that the reliance on the reports was clearly erroneous. 9. Again, the appellant invited the ERC to make the decision they did by presenting the City with the two documents by McCarthy. One was the Level 3 drainage analysis and then his proposed mitigation measures. Those documents indicated that flooding and/or ponding of water occurs and could be exacerbated by the new development. Yes, the report is based on three (3) separate projects and those projects may be subject to separate code standards under certain "vesting doctrines" but this applicant Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 22 chose the route of a consolidated report and it is that report that suggested the newer standards were appropriate to avoid creating additional storm water problems in this area. So, back to a basic environmental question -would the development of this project cause more than a probable impact on the quality of the environment? If so, are there appropriate mitigations measures that can avoid those impacts? The first question is answered by reports that suggest that flooding is already an issue and it would likely be exacerbated by this project. Can those impacts be mitigated? Apparently, the reports suggest that following the newest standards would avoid further harm to the area. 10. Now, does the fact that flooding was identified as a problem that imposing of newer standards would mitigate those problems mean that the newer erosion control standards of the 2001 DOE Manual arc also appropriate? Or would the older standards be sufficient. It would appear that stormwater flooding would more probably than not sluice materials in any drainage course and also on surfaces. Clearing the property as generally proposed and removing the heavy vegetative cover that exists was expected to increase flooding. It seems that such deforestation would also increase erosional impacts. The newer standards are designed to protect stream and wetland areas from sediment. Unlike certain bulk standards that are mainly directed as aesthetic qualities where vesting does not generally invite additional harm, stormwater and by extension erosion standards address harmful conditions that more current knowledge was intended to address. This office believes that the ERC properly applied the newer 200 I DOE Manual's standards to address real problems with erosion. 11. This leaves the final issue, the appropriateness of the method imposed to guarantee the proposed wetland and buffer mitigation improvements. This office understands that there are financial consequences to how wetland mitigation is financed but there does not seem to be a tenable link between the method of financing the guarantees and the environmental outcome. Additionally, this condition seems one that is already regulated by Code and one that the ERC, itself, might not need to address. This office finds little relationship between the method of guaranteeing, bonding, letter of credit or what have you, a mitigation measure and the impact to be mitigated. Clearly, the mitigation required needs to be accomplished or the project would fail to pass environmental review creating untoward unmitigated environmental impacts. But that does not mean the ERC has a right to impose a specific manner of accomplishing the guarantee. The fact that this office has agreed that Condition #4 is an inappropriate SEPA mitigation measure does not mean that the City does not have the ability to require the same manner of guarantee to accomplish the same environmental result under its other ordinances. This office does not rule on the vesting principle in resolving this issue in the appellant's favor as a matter ofSEPA review. Condition Number 4 was erroneously imposed by the ERC and is reversed. 12. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. This office finds the ERC appropriately reviewed the stormwater documents and appropriately applied the mitigation measures suggested by those documents. No reasons were advanced to suggest this office reverse that decision or substitute another judgment. On the other hand, Condition Number 4 seems an inappropriate decision to backup up the appropriate decision requiring wetland mitigation itself. 13. The appealing party has a burden of demonstrating error and that was only partially met in the instant case. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Ai,,-eal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 23 Conditions l and 5 are affirmed. Condition 4 is reversed and removed from the determination. ORDERED THIS 28'h day of April 2009. FRED J. KA MAN J HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 28'h day of April 2009 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215-72•d Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE I 42"d Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164'h Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Steve Bottheim, Supervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0!00 Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Bruce Whittaker, Sr. Engr. Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128'" Street Renton, WA 98059 Hans Korve Dmp Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gregg l 6046 SE l 42"d Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes Corp. 1203 -l l 4'" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8'" Street, Ste. 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147'1' Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Trishah Bull ODES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Shirley Goll, ASll CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215-72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 John & Nenita Ching I 603 8 SE 142"d Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle I 8225 SE 14 7th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E. PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 8 l 1 S 273'd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE J44<h Street Renton, WA 98059 Kim Claussen, PPMIII CPLN LUSD SE OAK DE 0100 Kelly Whiting, KC DOT RD SERV DIV MS OAK DE 0100 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ A,,peal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 24 CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 King County DOES Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98057 Kris Langley, Sr. Engr Traffic CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Larry West, Env Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE O 100 Alex Perlman DOES LUSD MS OAK DE O I 00 TRANSMITTED THIS 28'' day of April, 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Lisa Dinsmore DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Chad Tibbits DOES LUSD MS OAK DE O 100 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section JOOGofthe City's Code, reguest for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2009. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Location Map Department of Community ~ & Economic Development \5) Alex Pietsch, Administrator EXHIBIT 7 Legend C::J Liberty Garden CJoeums ~ Elevat100 File Name H.\CED1GIS_projectslvicirnty_maps\ mxds\porcels _ 145700145&0150 _liberty _gardan. mxd Liberty Garden Topo Map February 26, 2009 0 75 150 300 --===---•Feet 1:3,250 (.;_ --------Ji .,~ I I ---1 ----~ / f-Ui--- ~ r I _J_ ' ---------1'"' ~~~ --~-------------..-.. ~ Department of Community ~ & Economic Development ~-AlexPietsch:~dministrator EXHIBIT 2 !!l fli --+-~T''T---zr--l ®,i:t~:i1:~'I', I ; ! . ' _ _: __ L _ _L __ l ~-'--'--I Legend c:::J Liberty Garden C.la~ ""'" c:J Renton Parcels File Na:-:--e: H:··.CEDIGIS_projecls\vicinity_maps\ mxds\parce:s_: 45700145&0150_1iberty_garden mxd Liberty Garden Vicinity Map February 24, 2009 0 150 300 600 Feet 1:6,000 :t:10::f N'vld ONl.l.N'fld 3dV:JSCN'(l N3Y'13::JV'ld3t:I 331:il J.N\I'~ ON¥ NOil V3~/30VNl\f00 rf!ID!S >.l:h'Nlr(n3~ .... -.., ... .., "" ~~ ~ < ~ ; ! l ~~,1 ! I '. I I I / 1 ! I I I I _J ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ < • ~ 6L99-9t"ti (C'SC:J 861.86 'vM 'S3Nl0n 630 1:::;, o~£:a s us 311:il.3d "t"l Olt\"10 ' : l:'·lfi -...C_cc(!;'f ~ ' l i • i::,r-~f:-:---4 i~:·-//'. . ir ~ " -'1:rJ rill&· •~<(><•I {t!1-1H!Qt) H'tlll6 >11, '1Nl)o _., -;;; -t11noS. ;,.,..11,v a<U 11~1 ' I ! h t· I 11 ii ' ! ' ! I ' ! ' ! i~ ,_'!, i I ,• ,, II ,: il i }g e ' I I ! I ' ' - ! I ! ! I ... ~····· .• ... ·' \ z / . ./ L L ..___,...-- 4 .-. -~ ··-· -.. }. --· PRELIMINARY Pl.AT MAP OF LIBERTY GARDENS A POOl10N OF ll1E SE 1/4 OF SECTION 6 TOWNSH!' 22 N. RANGE 5 E. WM rnG COUNTY, WASHINOTON ·, \ . ~ ..• .;~ j \ -...r.::: ,. ........ \ ) '-___ .~ -- _.,__ __ .__ -------. .' I ! i ,. EXHIBIT 3 Fred J Kaufman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dave Petrie [DavePetrie@comcast.net] Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:24 PM Kolin Taylor; Curtis Schuster Hans Korve ofc; Rocale Timmons; Daniel Balmelli; Wayne Potter PRIVATE AGREEMENT-162nd Ave SE/SE 144th St & SE 136th St/156th Ave SE Untitled PDF; Cost Comparisons-Reliable Constr.doc The subject deals with two specific extensions/intersections. Paragraph 4 does not facilitate abrogating the Private Agreement. Paragraph 4, page 2 "--alternative design--" deals with the 11 items of the preceding paragraph 3. You may remember that signalization at 136th Street, addressed during the Theadgill development, was a costly issue, an example of what was meant by paragraph 4. The subject document does not cover alternate LOCATIONS for secondary access to the three plats. Alternate locations of Secondary Access is beyond the scope of the Agreement. If such consideration was to be included, the title of the Agreement would so state. However, from a practical standpoint, any option to achieve Secondary Access should be evaluated in terms of positive versus negative benefits to all parties. If 164th Ave becomes the selected Option, a (revised) Private Agreement is still required to cover any common costs. Cost comparisons (by Reliable Construction, Russ Nishikawi) for three options for Secondary Access are attached. Option 2-a variant of the baseline Option of 162nd Ave Extension-is the least cost. In this option, the storm water from the 160th Ave corridor is redirected to stay in that corridor, thus relieving the baseline 162nd Ave Extension (Option 1) from accommodating the 14 cfs flow (every 3-5 years) resulting from the unauthorized redirection by Leroy Naber (deceased) in 1975. At the January 28, 2008 Renton City Council meeting, flooding victims Gragg and Chin (residing at the end of the 142nd Pl cul de sac)-recognizing that the Liberty Annexation would soon place the upstream section of 160th Ave under the purview of Renton-pleaded that Renton undertake a project to return this storm water to the 160th Ave corridor by utilizing the inert/inactive culvert system downstream of 142nd Pl to 144th Street (where this storm water ends up presently, as now detoured via the baseline 162nd Ave Extension). In negotiations with ODES (Whittaker, drainage) in 2007, hydraulics Engineer Ed McCarthy evaluated the feasibility of this redirection of storm water, approving its feasibility and advantages. Later, when he learned from Rick Schwartz (KC Roads) that a CB 180' north of 144th street was installed (1990) in such a way that it would surcharge via a 12" stub when significant water was flowing in that 12" culvert, he expressed concern. I investigated that installation with my engineer Dan Balmelli (Barghausen) in November 2008, later determining that this flawed installation could be corrected by plugging this useless stub (at a cost of $62, plus two man-hours labor), thus restoring the capacity of that culvert from its present -40% to 100%. In January 2009, Hans Korve (Planner, DMP Inc) and Chad Armour (Wetland Biologist) walked the drainage situation with me. Armour later advised that one way to clean up the question of a wetland on the adjacent Smith property-through which the illegally diverted water sheet-flows during storms, 1 would be to complete the diversion ,...SAP, so that the plat review could proceed without the 162nd Ave being so encumbered by any question that the storm water might be a Class 3 Stream. (Note: During the plat review process with ODES, this storm water was eventually classed as such, the Class 3 label removed). In October 2008, Brian Sleight (KC Water and Land Resources Division) inspected the storm water sheeting across the Smith property, declaring that it was not a bona fide wetland. Brian (P.E.) has advised me that the subject storm water should eventually be redirected with 18" culverts on each side of the section of 160th Ave between 140th Street and 142nd Pl. Rick Schwartz (KC Road Maintenance) has told Smith that activation of the aforementioned inert culvert system would eventually be done, once funding was available. Now, that section of 160th Ave is under the purview of Renton, thus the reason Gragg and Chin sought help by appearing before the Renton City Council as aforementioned. An additional consideration among the options for Secondary Access is the off-site sewer line, now being 1320' to reach the new line at 160th Ave SE and SE 144th Street, completed in April 2008. That sewer line will require an access road over it so as to service the manholes, according to Dave Christensen, Renton Utilities. Difficulties in installing that line, now requiring a couple of 22' deep manholes, may require the sewer line to run down 164th Ave-increasing its length to 2000' under existing asphalt-in the event that Option is selected. (Note: Project Manager Timmons has previously told Potter that no work on 164th Ave southward to 144th Street would be required). Regarding your attempt to now change Cavalla's density from R-4 to R-6 via TDR's, such would damage the value of any nearby plats•. I urge you to Stay the Course of the Renton Planners who designated (in 2004) the Renton East Plateau at R-4 density; thus helping maintain homogeneity in the higher-quality residences we seek in development of the 162nd-164th Ave corridor. *Liberty Gardens at R-4 density would be damaged several hundreds of thousands of dollars with an R-6 plat adjacent to it. The surrounding areas to the south and north have been developed at 10,000-18,000 sq ft. lots. R-6 lots are 4,000- 5,000 sq. ft. Dave Petrie Developer, Liberty Gardens 253-946-6610 2 To: City of Renton EDNSP 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 14 January, 2004 RE: Impact of Density Credit Transfers (DCT) on Intended Residential Density Zoning I am a land developer; currently working a 38-lot plat (Liberty Gardens) located immediately SW of Liberty High School. The development is in compliance with KC R-4 zoning, and your Planning Commissions intent for outlying residential areas of Renton and possible annexations. I have a Sewer Availability letter from Dave Christensen in Renton's Utility Systems Division. As you know, there are at least four developers a quarter-mile northwest of my plat that are using the DCT to densify beyond that specified by the R-4 zoning. They have urged me to do the same, hoping for a domino-effect with the Hearing Examiners. I have resisted, partly because the five-acre Dickenson Plat immediately to my north contains five 28,000 sq. ft. lots; the homes immediately to my south are at 18,000 sq.ft. Lot sizes of 3500-5000 sq.ft. Under R-6,zoning would be incC?_mpatible wlt!.U~C3-.L!!~_120, dealing with adjacency commonality. · -· · · From a purely aesthetic point-of-view, it seems to me that the OCT undermines the intent of planners who target a maximum density in order to achieve an ambience for home owners who desire larger homes with associated lawn and garden. The economic ease with which developers can thus degrade the intent of planners should be of concern. My view is that lot value is roughly proportional to size, because of the general rule that the finished lot is worth one-third the sale value of the completed home. But other developers aim toward the cheaper lots, simply because more buyers can meet the down-payment and mortgage requirements on family income. This is serious issue, having permanent long-term impact on quality-of-life. Accordingly. I urge you to consider petitioning the KC Council regarding a change in the DCT even outright abolishment of this provision. The KC Council has the power to make such a change. Costs claimed by the developers who have proceeded down this path are a pittance compared to the long-term degradation in residential quality of the involved areas. Time is important, due to the imminence of the aforementioned plat approvals. Feel free to comment or advise, either by phone or e-mail. Dave Petrie 811 So. 273ri1 Ct. Des Moines. WA 98198 253-946-6619 davepetrie@comcast.net cc: 1~y Covii,gton · Alex Pici.cb Rebecca Lind P&DC report lDR\ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT February 23, 2004 Density~. 't Transfers. · (Janu. 26, 2004) APPF!OVED BY ··1 CITY COUNCIL Date c2-:l 3-Joo'/ Rev 01/04 hli 3. An Example Using a resent subdivision in East Renton Plateau as an example the number of houses that could be allowed under King County versus Renton development regulations are: King County raron densi"'' Renton /net densl"'' Number of acres 11.6 11.6 -3.5 = 8.1 (Adjusted for roads, wetlands, etc.) x Zoning Calculation (x 4 units/acre)= 46.4 (x 4 units/acre)= 32.4 + TDR or RDI Credit 11.6x 2 = 23.2 0 Total houses allowed 69.6 32.4 4. If Renton's Zoning Is Supposed to Result In Lower Density than the County's, What Happened on 12tf' Avenue SE? First, some of the development along 128'" was already vested using the King County regulations. Due to differences in gross and net density, as well as smaller lot sizes and building setbacks, projects started in King County usually achieve a higher density. Once an application is made, the regulations at the lime of application stay throughout the development project. However, some of the development occurred under Renton regulations as well. Portions of the area already annexed were planned as part of the Renton's Comprehensive Plan for higher density single-family subdivisions surround the commercial area to provide housing and a lifestyle where people can walk to services. The planned density decreases along the NE 4••11281 • corridor as you move east. The area immediately adjacent to the commercial areas (next to QFC) has medium-density land use in the Comprehensive Plan and R-10 zoning (10 du/net acre). This zoning replaced multi-family zoning (R-18) In King County upon annexation. The area farther east is developed with several new subdivisions with single-family land use and R-8 zoning. This is the zoning that Renton has in most of its residential areas throughout the city. The portions of the Plateau with this land use designation are mostly now annexed and in the process of development The last new housing area ·already In the City limits (Maureen Heights and Amberwood) was developed under R-5 zoning. In 2004, the City did an extensive review of the development occurring in this area in response to public concerns that the quality did not meet the vision end direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Several major changes were made in the R-10 and R-8 zones to require larger lot sizes and get better landscaping. In addition, Renton eliminated the R-5 zone last year and adopted a new zo,ning classification for the East Renton Plateau that limits development to a maximum of 4 houses per net acre, compared to the 6 houses per gross acre that are currently allowed by King County.1'lothing has yet been developed under these regulations. East Renton Plateau November 2006 Task Force Recommended Prezoning -East Renton Plateau e Eci>nortHc: Development. Neighborboods & Slratcgic Planning Alu P11:1,ch. i\dnums:ira,or CE. Fc.sel 25 Cktober J().')6 City Limits 0 2000 4000 Urban Growth Boundary l : 24000 Fred J Kaufman To: Dave Petrie Subject: RE: Sewer Line, TDR/DCT All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. From: Dave Petrie [mailto:DavePetrie@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 5:24 PM To: Rocale Timmons Subject: Fw: Sewer Line, TDR/DCT When I found out an hour ago that KBS was planning to resubmit the adjacent Cavalla Plat at R-6 density, changing three years of their work with DOES at R-4, I called Erica Conkling again (see below). I talked to Judy in Zoning, who informed me that Erica was gone until June on maternity leave, she said-as did Erica on February 9-that I should call you. I have also found by my own research that the best topo's to get the sewer line down to 144th Street may be via 164th Ave, at significantly higher cost and impact on the neighborhood. A contractor* told me that the design I showed him just wouldn't work, mostly due to the deep cut to accommodate the 22' deep manholes. I too would like to make the March 17 date work for the Plat Hearing. But there is still too much work yet to be done with Renton Staff, my two engineering firms, and KBS to get all of this to "settle" into a reasonably malleable agreement so quickly. *I have a recorded call into Lys Hornsby (Renton Utility Systems), trying to get the exact elevation above SL of the sewer line at 160th Ave and 144th Street, and who the Contractor was who installed the new line, completed in April 2008. -----Original Message ----- From: Dave Petrie To: Wayne Potter ; Hans Korve ofc ; Daniel Balmelli Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:34 PM Subject: Sewer Line, TDR/DCT Phone call to Dave Christensen (Sewer Utility): They require a manhole every 400'; and a gravel road access to all parts of the line. He was unaware of the 164th Ave option for Secondary Access. I told Dave about my concern for the difference in topo lines (400' at bottom of SA swale for lot 25 sewer line versus 422' for top of ridge). He had no suggestions on how to work this. I suggested a small lift station for the most southerly lots, which he did not like. Phone call to Erika Conkling (Senior Planner, Zoning/Planning Commission): 1 Renton has not changed the results of their Planning Commission Meetings (Feb 2004) that I had attended. There is no provision for densities greater than R-4 on the East Renton Plateau (except the damage already done four years ago with the plats along 160th Ave). According to Erika, because all Cavalla work done under DOES prior to Annexation was for R-4, any attempt to now change under the vesting date (Feb 2006) would be resisted vigorously by Renton. After 15-minutes discussion, Erika wanted to switch me to Timmons. I said "no" due to protocol issues; and I did not know who all in City Hall knew about the recent TDR thoughts of KBS. 2 Fred J Kaufman From: Sent: To: Dave Petrie [DavePetrie@comcast.net] Monday, March 09, 2009 5:24 PM Rocale Timmons Subject: Attachments: Fw: Sewer Line, TDR/DCT Untitled.PDF When I found out an hour ago that KBS was planning to resubmit the adjacent Cavalla Plat at R-6 density, changing three years of their work with DOES at R-4, I called Erica Conkling again (see below). I talked to Judy in Zoning, who informed me that Erica was gone until June on maternity leave, she said-as did Erica on February 9-that I should call you. I have also found by my own research that the best topo's to get the sewer line down to 144th Street may be via 164th Ave, at significantly higher cost and impact on the neighborhood. A contractor* told me that the design I showed him just wouldn't work, mostly due to the deep cut to accommodate the 22' deep manholes. I too would like to make the March 17 date work for the Plat Hearing. But there is still too much work yet to be done with Renton Staff, my two engineering firms, and KBS to get all of this to "settle" into a reasonably malleable agreement so quickly. *l have a recorded call into Lys Hornsby (Renton Utility Systems), trying to get the exact elevation above SL of the sewer line at 160th Ave and 144th Street, and who the Contractor was who installed the new line, completed in April 2008. -----Original Message ----- From: Dave Petrie To: Wayne Potter ; Hans Korve ofc ; Daniel Balmelli Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:34 PM Subject: Sewer Line, TDR/DCT Phone call to Dave Christensen (Sewer Utility): They require a manhole every 400'; and a gravel road access to all parts of the line. He was unaware of the 164th Ave option for Secondary Access. I told Dave about my concern for the difference in topo lines (400' at bottom of SA swale for Jot 25 sewer line versus 422' for top of ridge). He had no suggestions on how to work this. I suggested a small lift station for the most southerly lots, which he did not like. Phone call to Erika Conkling (Senior Planner, Zoning/Planning Commission): Renton has not changed the results of their Planning Commission Meetings (Feb 2004) that I had attended. There is no provision for densities greater than R-4 on the East Renton Plateau (except the damage already done four years ago with the plats along 160th Ave). According to Erika, because all Cavalla work done under ODES prior to Annexation was for R-4, any attempt to now change under the vesting date (Feb 2006) would be resisted vigorously by Renton. 1 After 15-minutes discussion, Erika wanted to switch me to Timmons. I said "no" due to protocol issues; and I did not know who all in City Hall knew about the recent TOR thoughts of KBS. 2 Fred J Kaufman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dave Petrie [DavePetrie@comcast.net] Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1224 PM Kolin Taylor; Curtis Schuster Hans Korve ofc; Rocale Timmons; Daniel Balmelli; Wayne Potter PRIVATE AGREEMENT-162nd Ave SEISE 144th St & SE 136th St/156th Ave SE Untitled.PDF; Cost Comparisons-Reliable Constr.doc The subject deals with two specific extensions/intersections. Paragraph 4 does not facilitate abrogating the Private Agreement. Paragraph 4, page 2 "--alternative design--" deals with the 11 items of the preceding paragraph 3. You may remember that signalization at 136th Street, addressed during the Theadgill development, was a costly issue, an example of what was meant by paragraph 4. The subject document does not cover alternate LOCATIONS for secondary access to the three plats. Alternate locations of Secondary Access is beyond the scope of the Agreement. If such consideration was to be included, the title of the Agreement would so state. However, from a practical standpoint, any option to achieve Secondary Access should be evaluated in terms of positive versus negative benefits to all parties. If 164th Ave becomes the selected Option, a (revised) Private Agreement is still required to cover any common costs. Cost comparisons (by Reliable Construction, Russ Nishikawi) for three options for Secondary Access are attached. Option 2-a variant of the baseline Option of 162nd Ave Extension-is the least cost. In this option, the storm water from the 160th Ave corridor is redirected to stay in that corridor, thus relieving the baseline 162nd Ave Extension (Option 1) from accommodating the 14 cfs flow (every 3-5 years) resulting from the unauthorized redirection by Leroy Naber (deceased) in 1975. At the January 28, 2008 Renton City Council meeting, flooding victims Gragg and Chin (residing at the end of the 142nd Pl cul de sac)-recognizing that the Liberty Annexation would soon place the upstream section of 160th Ave under the purview of Renton-pleaded that Renton undertake a project to return this storm water to the 160th Ave corridor by utilizing the inert/inactive culvert system downstream of 142nd Pl to 144th Street (where this storm water ends up presently, as now detoured via the baseline 162nd Ave Extension). In negotiations with ODES (Whittaker, drainage) in 2007, hydraulics Engineer Ed McCarthy evaluated the feasibility of this redirection of storm water, approving its feasibility and advantages. Later, when he learned from Rick Schwartz (KC Roads) that a CB 180' north of 144th street was installed (1990) in such a way that it would surcharge via a 12" stub when significant water was flowing in that 12" culvert, he expressed concern. I investigated that installation with my engineer Dan Balmelli (Barghausen) in November 2008, later determining that this flawed installation could be corrected by plugging this useless stub (at a cost of $62, plus two man-hours labor), thus restoring the capacity of that culvert from its present -40% to 100%. In January 2009, Hans Korve (Planner, DMP Inc) and Chad Armour (Wetland Biologist) walked the drainage situation with me. Armour later advised that one way to clean up the question of a wetland on the adjacent Smith property-through which the illegally diverted water sheet-flows during storms, 1 would be to complete the diversion ""AP, so that the plat review could p. _ceed without the 162nd Ave being so encumbered by any question that the storm water might be a Class 3 Stream. (Note: During the plat review process with ODES, this storm water was eventually classed as such, the Class 3 label removed). In October 2008, Brian Sleight (KC Water and Land Resources Division) inspected the storm water sheeting across the Smith property, declaring that it was not a bona fide wetland. Brian (P.E.) has advised me that the subject storm water should eventually be redirected with 18" culverts on each side of the section of 160th Ave between 140th Street and 142nd Pl. Rick Schwartz (KC Road Maintenance) has told Smith that activation of the aforementioned inert culvert system would eventually be done, once funding was available. Now, that section of 160th Ave is under the purview of Renton, thus the reason Gragg and Chin sought help by appearing before the Renton City Council as aforementioned. An additional consideration among the options for Secondary Access is the off-site sewer line, now being 1320' to reach the new line at 160th Ave SE and SE 144th Street, completed in April 2008. That sewer line will require an access road over it so as to service the manholes, according to Dave Christensen, Renton Utilities. Difficulties in installing that line, now requiring a couple of 22' deep manholes, may require the sewer line to run down 164th Ave-increasing its length to 2000' under existing asphalt-in the event that Option is selected. (Note: Project Manager Timmons has previously told Potter that no work on 164th Ave southward to 144th Street would be required). Regarding your attempt to now change Cavalla's density from R-4 to R-6 via TDR's, such would damage the value of any nearby plats*. I urge you to Stay the Course of the Renton Planners who designated (in 2004) the Renton East Plateau at R-4 density; thus helping maintain homogeneity in the higher-quality residences we seek in development of the 162nd-164th Ave corridor. *Liberty Gardens at R-4 density would be damaged several hundreds of thousands of dollars with an R-6 plat adjacent to it. The surrounding areas to the south and north have been developed at 10,000-18,000 sq ft. lots. R-6 lots are 4,000- 5,000 sq. ft. Dave Petrie Developer, Liberty Gardens 253-946-6610 2 PRIVATE AGREEMENT 162nd Ave SE Extension to SE 144111 ST. and SE 136th ST Intersection at 1S6do Ave SE KBS, Rabul B. and Arvind J. Petrie & Eagle Creek Laud & Development The following agreement is entered into between Rahul B. and Arvind J. Petrie, as individuals ["Petrie"], KBS Development Corporation, a Washington Corporation ["KBS"], and Eagle Creek Land & Development, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ["Eagle Creek"], and collectively wilh Petrie, KBS and Eagle Creek "Developers"] as of May 10, 2007. 1. Prooerties!Pumose. A. Petrie is the owner of that real property described in Exhibit A ["Liberty Gardens"]. B. KBS is the contract owner of that real property described in Exhibit B ["Cavalla"J. C. Eagle Creek is the contract owner of that real property described in Exhibit C £"Threadgill"]. D. The Developers have applications for residential subdivisions submitted to the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services ["King County"] for each of the above properties [''Properties''], and have already been or will be required to provide certain mitigation for their Properties impacts on the surrounding road improvements as part of the King County environmental review process. The purpose of this agreement is to develop a mechanism for collectively providing the required or agreed upon mitigation improvements and allocating the costs related thereto. 2 Acting Committee. Each Developer shall appoint one representative to a committee to act on behalf of the Developers [" Acting Committee"] and the Acting Committee shall act by majority vote to determine all matters to be done under this Agreement 3. Road Improvements and Mitigation. To comply with the required SEPA mitigation and or agreed upon road improvements that may be required by King County for the intersection at SE 136111 St and 1561h Ave SE as well as the extension of 162"" Ave Se beginning at the SW rorner of Liberty Gardens continuing South until SE 144"' St, the Developers shall cooperatively Page I of 12 Initial ~<fi..._ Op ,f sf o, "f%;-. '"""' design, pennit, and install the improvements approved by the County, and shall jointly provide the funds required for such costs, which may include but shall not be limited to the cost of the following ["Mitigation Costs"]: 162 Ave SE Extension and SE !36'h St •nrJ 156'.i' Ave SE Intersection I. ROW hnprovements; 2. Storm water detention; 3. Landscape mitigation; 4. Engineering design and jurisdiction review fees; 5. Financial guarantee and insurance premiums; 6. Design work and studies by professional consultants; 7. Legal fees. 8. Additional improvements required by King County or City of Renton dwing the design review and/or construction process. 9. Removal and/or relocation of power or light poles. 10. Signalization if deemed necessary. 11. Channelization. 4. Alternative Design. In the event an alternative design can be approved by WSDOT and King County at a lesser cost, all parties agree to pursue the alternative and share in the costs for this action based on the pro-rata share methodology as defined below. 5. Pro-rata Contributions. Each Developer agrees to fund a pro rata portion of the Mitigation Costs, as such costs become due, based on the number of units created from each Developer's Property as those lots to the total of such lots for all Properties. Currenlly, the lots are agreed to be as follows for each Property: Liberty Gardens: Cavalla: Threadgill: 37 Units 34 Units 15 Units Based on the agreed number of units above, the following percentage of the Mitigation Costs ("Mitigation Cost Percentages"] shall apply to the Properties: Liberty Ga.dens: Cavalla: Threadgill: 6. Revision to Percentages. 43% 40% 17% By executing this Agreement, the Developers agree to the above percentages for the Properties. However, it is also agreed by the Developers that the number of such Page 2 of12 Initial #tJ.@ Qp 1,fr/•1 'k{o1 """"' Fred J Kaufman From: Sent: To: Subject: Fred J Kaufman Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1 :32 PM 'Dave Petrie' RE: PRIVATE AGREEMENT-162nd Ave SE/SE 144th St & SE 136th SU156th Ave SE All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. From: Dave Petrie [mailto:DavePetrie@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:24 PM To: Kolin Taylor; Curtis Schuster Cc: Hans Korve ofc; Rocale Timmons; Daniel Balmelli; Wayne Potter Subject: PRIVATE AGREEMENT-162nd Ave SE/SE 144th St & SE 136th St/156th Ave SE The subject deals with two specific extensions/intersections. Paragraph 4 does not facilitate abrogating the Private Agreement. Paragraph 4, page 2 "--alternative design--" deals with the 11 items of the preceding paragraph 3. You may remember that signalization at 136th Street, addressed during the Theadgill development, was a costly issue, an example of what was meant by paragraph 4. The subject document does not cover alternate LOCATIONS for secondary access to the three plats. Alternate locations of Secondary Access is beyond the scope of the Agreement. If such consideration was to be included, the title of the Agreement would so state. However, from a practical standpoint, any option to achieve Secondary Access should be evaluated in terms of positive versus negative benefits to all parties. If 164th Ave becomes the selected Option, a (revised) Private Agreement is still required to cover any common costs. Cost comparisons (by Reliable Construction, Russ Nishikawi) for three options for Secondary Access are attached. Option 2-a variant of the baseline Option of 162nd Ave Extension-is the least cost. In this option, the storm water from the 160th Ave corridor is redirected to stay in that corridor, thus relieving the baseline 162nd Ave Extension (Option 1) from accommodating the 14 cfs flow (every 3-5 years) resulting from the unauthorized redirection by Leroy Naber (deceased) in 1975. At the January 28, 2008 Renton City Council meeting, flooding victims Gragg and Chin (residing at the end of the 142nd Pl cul de sac)-recognizing that the Liberty Annexation would soon place the upstream section of 160th Ave under the purview of Renton-pleaded that Renton undertake a project to return this storm water to the 160th Ave corridor by utilizing the inert/inactive culvert system downstream of 142nd Pl to 144th Street (where this storm water ends up presently, as now detoured via the baseline 162nd Ave Extension). In negotiations with DOES (Whittaker, drainage) in 2007, hydraulics Engineer Ed McCarthy evaluated the feasibility of this redirection of storm water, approving its feasibility and advantages. Later, when he learned from Rick Schwartz (KC Roads) that a CB 180' north of 144th street was installed (1990) 1 in such a way that it would surcharge via a 12" stub when significant water was flowing in that 12" culvert, he expressed concern. I investigated that installation with my engineer Dan Balmelli (Barghausen) in November 2008, later determining that this flawed installation could be corrected by plugging this useless stub (at a cost of $62, plus two man-hours labor), thus restoring the capacity of that culvert from its present -40% to 100%. In January 2009, Hans Korve (Planner, DMP Inc) and Chad Armour (Wetland Biologist) walked the drainage situation with me. Armour later advised that one way to clean up the question of a wetland on the adjacent Smith property-through which the illegally diverted water sheet-flows during storms, would be to complete the diversion ASAP, so that the plat review could proceed without the 162nd Ave being so encumbered by any question that the storm water might be a Class 3 Stream. (Note: During the plat review process with ODES, this storm water was eventually classed as such, the Class 3 label removed). In October 2008, Brian Sleight (KC Water and Land Resources Division) inspected the storm water sheeting across the Smith property, declaring that it was not a bona fide wetland. Brian (P.E.) has advised me that the subject storm water should eventually be redirected with 18" culverts on each side of the section of 160th Ave between 140th Street and 142nd Pl. Rick Schwartz (KC Road Maintenance) has told Smith that activation of the aforementioned inert culvert system would eventually be done, once funding was available. Now, that section of 160th Ave is under the purview of Renton, thus the reason Gragg and Chin sought help by appearing before the Renton City Council as aforementioned. An additional consideration among the options for Secondary Access is the off-site sewer line, now being 1320' to reach the new line at 160th Ave SE and SE 144th Street, completed in April 2008. That sewer line will require an access road over it so as to service the manholes, according to Dave Christensen, Renton Utilities. Difficulties in installing that line, now requiring a couple of 22' deep manholes, may require the sewer line to run down 164th Ave-increasing its length to 2000' under existing asphalt-in the event that Option is selected. (Note: Project Manager Timmons has previously told Potter that no work on 164th Ave southward to 144th Street would be required). Regarding your attempt to now change Cavalla's density from R-4 to R-6 via TDR's, such would damage the value of any nearby plats*. I urge you to Stay the Course of the Renton Planners who designated (in 2004) the Renton East Plateau at R-4 density; thus helping maintain homogeneity in the higher-quality residences we seek in development of the 162nd-164th Ave corridor. *Liberty Gardens at R-4 density would be damaged several hundreds of thousands of dollars with an R-6 plat adjacent to it. The surrounding areas to the south and north have been developed at 10,000-18,000 sq ft. lots. R-6 lots are 4,000- 5,000 sq. ft. Dave Petrie 2 Developer, Liberty Gardens 253-946-6610 3 ~~~~~ +!ff(+ ~;; 0 ;,;;::, Denis Law, Mayor ~·Nrt March 10, 2009 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUAOS-093, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Potter: CIT OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended January 5, 2009 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the above- referenced project. An appeal has been filed on the ERC Determination, therefore, the appeal will be heard as part of the Hearing Examiner public hearing scheduled for March 17, 2009, where Site Plan Conditions ma}' also be issued. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430°7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~ Roca Timmons Ass ciate Planner Enclosure cc: David Petrie/ Owner(s) Hans Korve, dmp, Inc. / Applicant See Attached/ Party(ies) of Record ~----~10_5_5 -So-u~th-Grad_y_· -W-ay--~R-e-nt-on-, _W_as_h_in_gton--98-0-57 ______ ~ (i) Th~ paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% poaf:consumer AHE,AD OF THE ~URVE ' ,. Steve Botheim, Supervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Kelly Whiting, KC DOT Road Svc Div MS OAK DE 0100 Kris Langley, Traffic Engineer CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Bruce Whittaker DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Larry West, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Don & Andrea Gregg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Kim Claussen PPMIII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Trishah Bull DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Chad Tibbits DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS LUSD Shirley Goll, ASII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Alex Perlman ODES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Lisa Dinsmore DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT· PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 10th day of March, 2009, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Reoresentina Wayne Potter Contact Hans Korve Applicant David Petrie Owner Parties of Record See Attached (s;g,alm of Seode<),_ ~ ,:ln~,L/,:;,,,- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrumen_t and ~cknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tQ..~,~~~.and purposes mentioned 1n the instrument. ..;.-:1 \.~;;,~,:'.1~111 .Tq'<, ,?'.'/),; fi", I~ Dated: 3\ 10 log ,/ 5.,,tJ,,;.~ . r,: ~ ~ d for the State f .. s inQtOri :}' Notary (Print): Bvrlo<sc L'{bO f:kL,,._" My appointment expires: ,'.;)-\ 't •10 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUAOS-093, ECF, PP COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING March 17, 2009 AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-08-093, ECF, PP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. HEX Agenda 3-17-09.doc Maich 5, 2009 Hans A. Korve Planning Manager Dmp, inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Liberty Gaidens Preliminary Plat / Appeal LUA-08-093, PP, ECF, AAD . DeaI Mr. Korve: CITY _F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has received your letter of March 4, 2009 regarding the scheduled hearing on your application. This item was scheduled and notice sent out in the customary manner and time frame. Also this office recalls that your heaiing was originally scheduled for November 4, 2008, rescheduled for November 18, 2008, rescheduled for January 13, 2009 and then rescheduled again to March 17, 2009, each time delayed at the mutual request of the applicant and City Attorney. At this point, parties of record, including former neighbor-appellants as well as others in neighborhood have been notified of the heaiing. This matter in some form or other has been in pending since 2004 and it is time for the item to be handled as scheduled. There will be two hearings that morning. One hearing will involve the appeal that you have raised in which the burden of showing staff error will be on you and your representatives. Limited public testimony will be permitted but the applicant-appellant can present their case of staff error. The City will be represented by its attorney and staff. The other heaiing will be on the pmposed plat. The order in which the two matters are heaid will be determined at the heaiing. This office understands your concern that certain matters may not be thrashed out with staff but staff appaiently has reviewed the pending application and is ready to deliver its recommendation at the public hearing. Staff's report is due one week prior to the hearing and it may contain recommendations that can be objected to by the applicant and/or other parties of record. Objections can be made at the public hearing if some of stall's facts, conclusions, recommendations or conditions are not satisfactory. That is the purpose of the public heaiing forum. You as well as your supporting team of engineers and consultants can present new evidence and testimony as can the general public. At the conclusion of the public heaiings and after a period of review this office will make a decision on the appeal and a sepaiate recommendation to the City Council on the plat. The Council would take final action on the plat. The applicant is free to attend the public hearing or can refrain from doing so but the record will be completed at the public hearing so it is best to have all of the testimony and evidence ----l-05_5_S_o_uth_G_r-ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-o-n,-W-as-h1-·n_gt_o_n_9_80_5_7---(4_2_5_)-43-0--6-5_1_5 ____ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recvded material. 30% oostconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE HansKorve dmp,inc. Match 5, 2009 Page2 submitted in that forum. The record becomes closed and any appeal of the Examiner's decision is based solely on this closed record. If this office can provide any additional assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, W}~~ Fred Kaufman Hearing EXllllliner City of Renton FJK/nt cc:.parties,oftecord Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO · Larry Warren, City Attorpey Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Neil Watts, Development Services Director. J,a,nnifer Henning, CurtentPlannmg:Manager.•· Chip Vincent, Planning Director ' Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner • · Mar 05 09 07:58a DMP, Inc. dmp, inc. March 4, 2009 Nancy Thompson City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Liberty Gardens Hearing -LUA 08-093 Dear Ms. Thompson: .- 253-"'33-2206-:,, : , p.2 MBE-DBE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING-PLANNING-SURVEYING 726 Auburn Way No~h Auburn. WA 98002 I am in receipt of your Hearing Notice for the above referenced matter. Please be advised that the Applicant will not attend the scheduled hearing and asks that it be rescheduled. As you can see from the attached copy of your notice, the notice was received on the 4th of this month. The hearing is scheduled for the 17th_. The Applicant has several outstanding issues that need to be resolved prior to the plat hearing for it to be productive. Thirteen days notice is simply not enough time to resolve the issues. Your letter is the first official notice we have received of this hearing. We advised Staff on Monday, March 2, 2009, that we had received no notice of a hearing date and that we requested a postponement of any scheduled hearing. We further requested that Staff schedule no further hearings without first contacting the Applicant to determine if we are able to attend. We would like to request a copy of any prior notification of this hearing that was prepared as well as any public notices that were posted. As we have no record of a prior hearing notice, we are attempting to update our files. Thank you for your time in this matter. If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (253) 333-2200. Sincer?ly, II- Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP, Inc. Liberty Garden dmp, inc. March 4, 2009 Nancy Thompson City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Liberty Gardens Hearing -LUA 08-093 Dear Ms. Thompson: DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING-PLANNING-SURVEYING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 I am in receipt of your Hearing Notice for the above referenced matter. Please be advised that the Applicant will not attend the scheduled hearing and asks that it be rescheduled. As you can see from the attached copy of your notice, the notice was received on the 4th of this month. The hearing is scheduled for the 1th. The Applicant has several outstanding issues that need to be resolved prior to the plat hearing for it to be productive. Thirteen days notice is simply not enough time to resolve the issues. Your letter is the first official notice we have received of this hearing. We advised Staff on Monday, March 2, 2009, that we had received no notice of a hearing date and that we requested a postponement of any scheduled hearing. We further requested that Staff schedule no further hearings without first contacting the Applicant to determine if we are able to attend. We would like to request a copy of any prior notification of this hearing that was prepared as well as any public notices that were posted. As we have no record of a prior hearing notice, we are attempting to update our files. Thank you for your time in this matter. If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (253) 333-2200. Sinc~r7'y, ff- Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP, Inc. Liberty Garden Denis Law, Mayor March 2, 2009 HansKorve dmp, inc. David Petrie 811 S l 73'ct Court CITY L -~ RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman RECEIVED MAR O 4 2009 BY: 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Des Moines, WA 98198 RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Appeal LUA LUA-08-093, PP, ECF, AAD L1 COPY Gentlemen: This office has received your appeal letter on the above referenced matter. Please be advised that the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this oifice can provide any further dSStstance, please address those comments in \\Titing. Sincerely, Nancy Thompson Secretary to Hearing Examiner City of Renton Encl: Copy of Appeal Letter cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services All Parties of Record ----10_5_5_S_o_uth-G-,a-d_y_W_a_y ___ R_en_to_n,_W_a_shi-_n_gt_o_n_9_8_0_57---(-42_5_)-43-0--6-5_1_5 ____ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recyc,eci material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE _/1 ) --:; I 7 ~) ~ 8 50 --a (,_, > cl ~< -c:£ ~ .--- (\) ") hi (i'j {;11 r-- lil fil il1 Nancy Thompson From: Rocale Timmons Sent: To: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:46 AM Nancy Thompson Subject: FW: Liberty Gardens -Hearing Date t-Jerc is the email that I n~ceived about postpor:ins the l _ibert,1J C~Jardens appc:al were not sure how to proceed down hcr·c flense let me know if ,you have 9uestions. (.,hJ ,,F j\n1ton I -,:_17 _) ,South (~1rad_~ \Va~} FZc:,ton. W/\ 9505 7 (+2_)) +)0-721 ';) (td) (+2.5) +)0-7)00 (f"ax1 From: Hans Korve [mailto:hans@dmp-inc.us] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:32 PM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; 'Ann Nielsen'; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens -Hearing Date Rocale- 1 have spoken to the Applicant as well as Wayne Potter. None of us have received notice of a Hearing. As such, I have been instructed to inform you that we want the Hearing postponed. We also request that no future date be established without first consulting with us to determine if we are available and ready to go to the Examiner. At this point, the Applicant is not ready to go to the Examiner and was shocked to receive my email on the subject. We are currently working on the two access options. We have received several cost estimates from contractors and we are beginning our review of the numbers. In the next week or so, we will be developing a list of questions for Staff. I h8ve asked our Client to use this approach to limit the "conversation" to issues that affect our choice of access options. Once our team has firmed up the list, I would like to submit it to you for review. My hope is that your answers will move the decision making along to a point where a meeting will be productive. I am sorry this is coming at such a late date, but we are just not prepared to go to the Hearing and two weeks notice is not enough time to wrap up our analysis. If you need to confirm the notification information for any of us, please let me know. Thanks for your understanding Hans -----Original Message----- From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:02 PM To: 'Hans Korve' Cc: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; 'Ann Nielsen'; 'Dave Petrie'; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens - 1 t1cllo Hans, !t 1s technicall~J not ncceSS~·3r_~J ror -~JOU to n:u1·i1\1 tJC.lllr appeal but it would be helpful J _lJOU \',.'er·c; to rcs11h1ni! :·l simple letter (to (~it_y (Jerk/t·learing L_:-..:-11111,1,::r With cc coF-..lc::, tc1 t~vcr::ionc in,-l1idc:<i 111 t:h1~ crl':iil~, cr'.1"1tl-,·; ·1(~larification oF Appea! lssi1esn or son1ct·h::·::.:, tCl :.hat cf.feet. The letter can s1rnpl_y state that aher COilllTll JI ,ic:1 I ion 1Nit:h the c:_1t~ ,St;,_if-l ~JUI J \\'Crc. s:-1b.:-d ic,1 cl."'i to :-.cxL \ii"' issue:"> pr-cviousl_y 1-aised in the appeal a:ad thl:i) have been deen1ed resolvedi with a list cl rcma1nins 1s::.11~:.:" (rf appeal. -. -, l j hank _yo1i. R.ocale -rimnions CihJ of l\cnton I 055 South C,-ad!J Via_,) F'.,cnton, 'vVA 9805 7 (4·2..5) 4')0-/21 9 (tel) (125) +:)0-7,'.>00 (tax) From: Hans Korve[mailto:hans@dmp-incus] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 11:35 AM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; 'Ann Nielsen'; 'Dave Petrie'; Kayren K, Kittrick Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens - Rocale- Thanks for the email. It helped clean up some issues, o Item #4 -I don't think we would ever propose to bond for wetland monitoring, As long as the City is sticking to the vested King County Code, we have no problem, A clarification by Staff at the Hearing would be appreciated. I think that will put the issue to rest. o Item #1 and 5 -I am glad we agree on the vesting date of the project. We will let the Examiner decide if the City can use SEPA to circumvent the vested codes, o Item #2 -I am confident that the vested King County codes will protect the wetland tracts. o Item #6 -If this issue is not being considered as a SEPA condition, then it should be removed from the list We will however have the same issues with any condition added to the Staff report We would still like to work with Staff and the other two projects in the area to see if we can address the issue prior to the Hearing, We understand that such a meeting was held last week with the other two projects. It would be appreciated if all parties could be included in future meetings, 2 While we appreciate that the City now has jurisdiction over the project, we have several documents that indicate that the City will use the vested King County codes to review the project. If this is not the case, please let us know. If it is the case, then we expect to see the vested codes applied as they were in the submitted DOES report. I suspect that the Examiner will look to ODES as the authority on their own code as well. It will be difficult for Staff to explain any major departure from the vested regulations or their historic application in the review of a project. In all cases, both the Examiner and the Council must provide findings that are supported by the vested regulations. I am confident, in both cases, that the Examiner and Council will uphold the County recommendations. How would you like me to modify the SEPA appeal we submitted to remove the items we have discussed? Hope you enjoyed the weekend Hans -----Original Message----- From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:02 PM To: 'Hans Korve' Cc: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; 'Ann Nielsen'; 'Dave Petrie'; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens - Hello rians, t-1opeful!,1J ! can add some clari(i:-.;-ition to the (~it_Lfs position with respect: to the items .~ou kwc. list·ed below. • Item#+-E:>011ding would not b,_': c1:1 option ro,· monitoring. • Item# I and 5 -The vecStir); date of the project is Decemba ].9, 2001·. t·ioweve,·, the mitigation measures ( 1 a11d :'i) 1::=..s:1cd from the (~it_t,fs E_nvironrnenta! R..cvic .. v (~ommittce (E:.JZC) still stand. • ]tern #2 -;-\s stated in the f:j\(__~ detem1inatio11; the recording of t:he cove113nt wzi:-> n.'.:'.(1u11·ed in order to pn~serve an,j r,1-~)tcd tl1e wetland/stream .:.,r.d its br._1ffcr-Frorn bcp;'1r·:1h·: :->;1!c. • ]tc.rn if::: 6 -r\:=. cxpbine,·'. 1'·: ,:111 1::, ,·Ling: tl.(~U'. I:, not :1 l1,):·. ":c:;:--1:1,· · dcte:1·minat1on th.:it rc .. 111i1-~·;s !le :-1f'!·")llcant· tn lrnF"r·uvc fror t:.iB/-' . .1'.o~.'.S : l.~-1 d·1 / \,-c ,-_;;_ . -. -1 : -, -I 1· . 1 1 1 mrl:igabon measure 111 the ,1ctei-1111:-ubo11 reciuires t ,c app rc:ant F'n.)v1c1c scco:1c:ar-_1J ;,cc.c:.s;:-. t lK'. site. (-Joweva, it: was nol,C<; wdhi,·, the bod.'J of the LKC rcr1 ort tl1al: staff would be a recommending~ as 3 co:--:ci1tion or :'lrT~roval of the F relimlnar·!d r'lat review; the applicant m~3k.e frontasc. m1provemc11ts :1long t·hc rmimprovcd portion of 164-th ;\ve. sr..:_ abutting the propcrt_tJ to t:he east. ,Std ff wdl provide rindings f.or this condition In the st:afl recommendation to the C.it'.J's (·-Jea,·ing Lx:,,ni,ecc,· ,1 ,·iorto the AppeaVF'relimina,·.•J F'lat hearing. T'.Jp1cal[,J the n:port is mailed to all part:,~s cl n~c:ord one week. prior-to the l1earir.g. The nreport11 that \o,,·as made avail::1blc l-,.~J K._ing (~ount.~fs I)J)E..S was solel_y a recommendation to the CihJ; howevei-the propcrt,J is w,th,n thcju1·isdiction of the CihJ of Renton. (Jltimatcl'.J ,tis the 3 (~it_y (~ouncil that will considcT the i-H_ioption or rejection of the j·1earing L_xami11er1s recommendation to approve the prr·liminar_y plat. The t·iear·ing C.xamincr will hold the public hearing on the prelirninar!:J pbt :rnd Forward his recommendations to the Cit_y Corrncii. The tlearing [~xaminc--:.r's r·ecomnicnd;1t1on 1.,1.,,ill also include findings oF Fact and concl1Js1ons t-o support ()r modif.,y the rCCc.JJTllll('.rl(b ho:1 of Staff Jf the c:1t_~J (_~_L)IJrlC.il clcCnlS tk:i t :l c.k-1 i\~~{' iT '. the tlcaring L.xamincr·:s 1·cc'-)111111,, 1:·io11 is nec.cssar:y, the ck.-i11t~C 1_/ the r·c:·on1n1; :·.J it ; •:" I 1 , 1 h c·· c I h , , . .-, , a so not De macte 11nt1 t. c ___ ;lcJ _ ,'-1 ::1:-: ::is nc1'-)F'tcci 1t·s tl\V:~ r1:1c11:\~~:,. 1·.l)::(..i:1s;c_;r·;~, recommendations ;:;)nd .approved L)1-d1s:ipprovccl the prclim1nar:y f-,..,,bt. JF ~JOU have further 9uestions fed F,·cc to let me know. 1·-hank. :JOU. f\oca!c ·r1mmons CihJ oF l\.enton I 05 5 South Crad9 Wa,J j{enton. \,VA )'805 7 (+z5) 1;,0-721 i' (tel) (+ Z5) +;,O-!JOO (Fax) From: Hans Korve [mailto:hans@dmp·inc.us] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 3: 14 PM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; 'Ann Nielsen'; 'Dave Petrie' Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens · Good Day Rocale - I can not express my disappointment in Staffs unwillingness to sit down with the Applicant to work through the SEPA issues or at least explain Staff's reasoning for the issues that are being appealed. When we were advised by the City to file a "Place Holder" Appeal I was unaware that filing an Appeal that actually explained our concerns , as required by RMC 4-8-110 (A) (2), would put us into a "litigation" posture. We are also being asked to undertake "settlement options". Has that replaced working with an Applicant to find common ground? What is the Staff asking to seek "settlement" on? The Applicant was presented with a SEPA determination, which contained items that were outside the conditions recommended by King County. No explanation was given for those modifications. These modifications were outside the City pledge to follow what King County had prepared. Given the short amount of time before the scheduled Hearing, we filed a lawful Appeal of the document to secure the Applicant's rights. All we are asking for is the opportunity to review the issues with Staff, see where we can find common ground, or at least an understanding of each others positions. With that said, the following is a brief discussion of the items listed under Subsection B of the Appeal: 4 o We can remove item #3 from the list. We have spoken with King County and received a satisfactory explanation. Unfortunately, there Staff was unavailable prior to the Appeal deadline. o We assume Staff can provide a simple clarification for item #4 to see if we have an issue or not. If there is no proposal to eliminate the Bonding option, then the issue is resolved. o Items #1 and #5 are a simple question of utilizing the vested documents. assume there is no argument over the vesting date of the project. o Item #2 is not a significant condition. However, we were unaware of this requirement in a vested regulation. If we are in error, then a simple clarification is needed. If we are not, then it should be simple to remove. o Item #6 is the only issue of controversy in the list. As a vested project, the provision of the 1993 KCRS apply. KCRS Section 1.03 states that" land development abutting and impacting existing roads shall improve the frontage". Under review with DDES, Staff made no comment or recommendation to require 1641h Ave improvements. Either Renton Staff can explain how DDES was in error in the application of its own code, or the condition should be removed. 0 Please review my brief comments above and reconsider allowing us to meet with Staff to discuss the remaining issues. Our greatest hope is to stand before the Examiner as a united front and not as adversaries. Have a nice weekend Hans -----Original Message----- From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:56 AM To: 'Hans Korve'; 'Ann Nielsen' Cc: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens - Hello rians, \'Ve. appreciate ~ourwiilins:1c~~:=, t·o work with stafl ;-\s we .:ire in we <.1rc now In a 11 libgal:ion" posture; plca~c send, in \Vr~ti1~s· wk~t appeal is.sue::. ~0t1 would like to sec dimi:1akct \1Vc ,viii h · ' ' 1·· I Jr ' · 1·· '1· review t osc issues and 1~1 0cc~,;t'l rom t 1ere. r ,LJOU h:c1,-·c <H\lJ ~:1ucsbons C(:i n~c to C:01',L·1ct me. 1-hanl _ijOIJ. Cit9 of Renton I 055 South Crad_,) Wc,<J Renton, WA 980:>7 (+25)100-7219 (tel) (+25) +',0-7;,00 (bx) From: Hans Korve [mailto:hans@dmp-inc.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:50 PM 5 To: 'Ann Nielsen' Cc: Rocale Timmons Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens - Ann- I know that in the Legal Department Staff is accustomed to using specific vocabulary, but as Planners, I think we are a little more simplistic. I have appealed and defended many SEPA decision and rarely do I ever include any legal council. If Legal Council is needed, it is usually only for the one or two items that can not be worked out by Staff. As I indicated in my original email to Rocale, I think that there are some issues that can be dropped without much discussion. That was one purpose of the meeting request. Our meeting was not to discuss possible "Settlement Options". We are hoping to work WITH Staff to come up with a common vision for the project. I am very sorry that you have such a family emergency. I hope things work out as best they can. I would be happy to schedule a meeting with Staff to review the issues and see which ones can be eliminated. From that point we can see which issues need more work and input from various staff members. I do not see bringing any legal council to any of the meetings and I don't really see a need for you to be there either, but you are always welcome. If legal council is needed it would be at the end of all the preliminary work. I would not want to impede the easy issues with ones we disagree on. If it will help, I would be happy to schedule a phone call with Rocale to read through the appeal together. I am sure we can get a good understanding of where we are. Again, I am very sorry to hear about your family issue Hans Korve DMP 6 CITY March 2, 2009 Hans Korve David Petrie 811 S l 73'd Court dmp, inc. 726Aub\Jrn Way N Aubum, WA 98002 Des Moines, WA 9&198 . RE: . Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Appeal LUALUA-08-093, PP; ECF, AAD Gentlemen: This office has received your apPeal letter on the above referenced.matter. •F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred.'J .. Kaufman Please be advised that the appeal hearing has been sclleduled fot tue~ay, March 17;2009 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing wilhake place in the Council Chambers 6h tte seventh floor of t]).e · Renton City Hall. The; addri:ssis 1055 S GradyWayinRertton. . If this office can provide. any further assistance, please addre-ss those c9)Jll11ents in writing. Sincerely, Nancy Thompson Secretary to Hearing Examiner City of Renton Encl: Copy of Appeal Letter. cc: . Larry Warren, Ciiy Attorney Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney · Neil Watts, Development Services Director . Chip Vincent; Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Maµager · · Rocak Timmons, Development Services · Stacy Tucker, Developn!ent Services All Parties of Record · ·~ -~--10-5_5_S_ou_th_G_r_a-dy-W~ay~--Re-.. -~t-o_n,_W_a_s-hi-ngt-on-9-80_5_7--(-4-25_)_4-30--6-5_1_5 --'-~-~ R E N T Q N @ This paper contains 50% recycled material:· 30% posrronsumer ' dmp, inc. JAN O 5 2009 ~,yo RECEIVED • ' d" January 5, 2009 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE •... 'ill.'~:-· *_-'':;ffi';f,'·',\'o)' c·.,c :~_., ;~itrJ· '.,,. '.,,,.:. \;'•''·~~·,:. •1i;,,\;'(·'i(tf_ 1t)jl,~-Z;_'"' _· ,. ~ ~,,;.,\'!'d•~ ~·~,.-l<'~l>''~-;-": ;i·, -c ",,.:t~.,1,•/*HL;\_, 0(\'.i:+'.il\20)),• ,' ·; ~, · : {i~:;.·c;, • k; ,,l t(',;,.;_,r,~.r,,., ,.._\ ~.,,-;.· :, ....... ~ !,,1?/al,P"'•ilf''d" t ,•f!.'""': DALEY -MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 TELEPHONE: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 RE: LUA08-093 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal Dear Ms. Timmons: As you are aware from our recent conversations, the Applicant has requested that I file a SEPA appeal on his behalf, in accordance with RMC 4-8-11 O. Subsection E (3) (a) provides that appeals of environmental determinations may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or affected by such determination. In reviewing the Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC}, dated December 15, 2008 for the plat of Liberty Gardens, the Applicant and the project will be adversely affected by various findings and/or conditions described and recommended in that report. We therefore are APPEALING the Environmental determination and request that a Consolidated Hearing take place before the Renton Hearing Examiner at the time of the Preliminary Plat review. Substantive Errors in Fact or Law: As required by RMC 4-8-110 (A) (2), the following sections describe the various errors in fact or law that exist in the ERC report and the City record: 1. On various occasions and in various documents, the City of Renton has referred to Liberty Gardens as a 36 lot plat, submitted to King County in December of 2004. This project was in fact prepared and submitted to King County as a 38 lot Preliminary Plat application. Over the last 4 years, the project has undergone extensive review and alteration as part of the normal review process. The Applicant wishes to reserve his right to a 38 lot plat, or at least 37 lots, and would like the record to reflect his cmrect vested lot count. ./ tc, lo.,..,.,.,\,-lA..-.. .... v .. ....-, ' c.:c,.~ f\.o.,J,_ ~.I).,,~ ----------~~----------",.I.,=+ l..l....-.... ,0-.,,1:..u Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal c. -~ · 0 \'...~\)~ ,Ck,.,.. [).:~ u..i-...u,..,' ~ cu The City of Renton has the opportunity to reverse previous denials made by King County of Applicant's proposal to vacate portions of adjacent 1641h Ave right-of-way (see attachment DMP, Inc Letter Proposal to vacate a portion of 162"d and 1641h Ave SE, dated May 10, 2005). The Applicant's request to vacate a portion of 1641h Ave included design for a direct entrance to the adjacent King County Park at the southwest corner of Liberty Gardens. The attached drawing depicts a 5' sidewalk on the east, plus two 1 O' lanes, with the remaining 5' for fencing/plantings. The existing 1 O' wide student path to Liberty HS would be relocated to the remaining 15' if the current 1641h ROW. This design provided better alignment of the park access with the existing improvements at the end of the 1641h Ave Cud-de-sac. We have also requested that Staff alter the Environmental Determination to reflect the original lot count. The overall site plan, circulation system and utility design will be unaffected by this alteration. The only notable impacts will be to traffic, school and emergency services. These impacts are addressed through the imposition of impact fees. We ask that the Examiner alter the record to reflect the original lot count or at least the possible 37 lot configuration, and furthermore request that the Environmental Determination also be altered to consider the full impacts of the total possible lot count. 2. RCW 43.21C.240 prohibits a Municipality from imposing SEPA conditions for those project impacts that are already adequately addressed under the vested development regulations. Furthermore, Subsection (4) A states that a development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the Municipality, through the planning and environmental review process under Chapter 36.?0A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and: (b) The legislative body of the Municipality has designated as acceptable certain levels of service or development standards required or allowed by Chapter 36.?0A RCW. Under these provisions, the Applicant objects to the proposed mitigation measures described under Part Two of the ERG Report. Subsection B: 1. The City has required compliance with the 2001 DOE storm water manual in preparation of the Temporary Erosion Control Plan. The Application is vested to the King County 1998 SWDM. This vested document established the need for, and the regulation of, Erosion Control Plans. Compliance with the applicable manual is mandatory under the vested development standards and no unique Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 2 adverse environmental impact has been identified to justify the modification of the adopted standards. We ask that the condition be stricken from the City recommendation. 2. The City has required the imposition of a restrictive covenant restricting the separate sale of all sensitive area tracts. There is no indication that this provision is required under the vested development regulations and no unique significant adverse environmental impact has been identified to justify the condition. We ask that it be removed. 3. The City has required a 5-year monitoring and maintenance plan be established for the wetland mitigation areas. Under the King County policies in place at the time of vesting, the project would have a 3-year maintainance period. This 3-year monitoring plan is discussed in both the original B-12 as well as the subsequent Chad Armour wetland reports. The County moved to the longer 5-year monitoring with the recent adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance. We ask that the Examiner modify the condition to reflect the vested provisions of the King County Code. 4. The City has required a Maintenance Surety Device for the proposed wetland and buffer mitigation improvments. The language in the report is unclear. It seems to leave out bonding as an option, which is allowed under County Code. We ask that this report language be modified to more clearly reflect the allowance of Performance and Maintenance bonds in accordance with KCC 27A. We ask that the condition be removed. The Applicant is already subject to the vested King County code which specifies bonding requirements. 5. The City of Renton has required the imposition of Level 3 flow control under the 2005 King County Manual as a SEPA condition. As stated earlier, this application was vested in December of 2004. This is prior to adoption of the noted 2005 Storm Water Manual. This application is subject to the 1998 KCSWDM. (note the typo listed in the ERC report which refers to the 1993 manual) We ask that the Examiner correct the record to reflect the appropriate vested document. It is also inappropriate to specify a level of flow control in advance of the full engineering review. Under the vested storm water manual, there are multiple engineering options to address the current drainage issues. We do not argue the need for additional flow control, we only disagree with the use of a non- vested document and the inclusion of the issue as a SEPA condition when the subject is fully covered in the vested Storm Water Manual.. Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 3 6. The City has required that the Applicant provide secondary access to avoid impacts to known high accident locations to the north. A similar development condition has been placed on a nearby subdivision, and will likely be placed on the adjacent plat of Cavalla, to the North. The Applicant is not disputing this condition. The Applicant's original proposal was to improve 162nd Ave SE, in accordance with the adopted King Co. Road Standards. The Applicant's proposal has never included improvement or access to 1641h Ave SE. While the Applicant appreciates the City's flexibility in alowing the Applicant to choose either option, he does object to the apparent addition of unrelated frontage improvements. The City has added a condition to improve frontage along 1641h Ave SE even if the Applicant provides the required secondary access along the 162nd Ave coridoor. This addition is contradictory to the prepared King County Staff report and is not supported by the adopted standards. In its proposed condition, the City correctly quoted KCRS 1.03 to say that " land development abutting and impacting existing roads shall improve the frontage". What Staff neglected to do was correctly~ the provision. Under the current proposal, Liberty Gardens is not impacting 154th Ave SE and therefore should not be required to improve it. 1641h Ave SE is an unimproved ROW adjacent to a large parcel of unimproved land owned by the King County Parks Department. The north end of the unimproved ROW terminates at home plate for the Liberty High School Baseball Diamond. The south end connects to a segment of unimproved ROW beyond an existing cul-de-sac. An additional segment of the unimproved 1641h ROW, adjacent to the plat of Cavalla, was previously vacated by King County. This vacation insures that 1641h Ave SE will not be extended in the future. It cannot reasonably be indicated that the Liberty Gardens proposal has any impact on 1641h Ave SE in its current form. As discussed earlier, under RCW 43.21C.240 it is inappropriate for the City to recommend a SEPA condition for those project impacts that are already adequately addressed under the vested development regulations. The 1993 KC Road Standards are very clear. The City has not identified a unique significant adverse environmental impact that would justify a deviation from the adopted code. We ask that this condition be removed. Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 4 Summary: In acordance with RMC 4-8-11 O we ask that the Hearing Examiner give our issues due consideration and grant the requested modifications as described above. We contend that under RCW 43.21C.240, it is inappropriate for the City to recommend a SEPA condition for those project impacts that are already adequately addressed under the vested development regulations. Under this provision, many of the recommended SEPA conditions are inappropriate and unsupported by the findings of the Environ ental Review Committee Report. Hans Korve-dmp, inc Designated Engineer for Plat Hearing ~Wk David Petrie, Developer Attachment: A. Barghausen -Park Access Exhibit B. Renton -Liberty Annexation Informational Letter C. Renton -Liberty Annexation Map D. DMP -2005 Vacation request letter Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 5 dmp, inc. <~l~}!litJ&~ilU&-~ 162"d Ave SE Option • ••... ,." .. · • ··· · · · ··· 11111r· ,. · · ........ · . ~~.:-.a~:;;~-«,;,\'";'.;\\''"·!i,AJ!iiid'"!',f' ·/'!'-C•f ·' .. ,,:.,,,.,.r-~.,~ _ --¥"i"~Mw.T;;1~/~r;'.' -_-_ ~t.t,t,···1.1,~:1,:J~l,f;.;:::. DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 TELEPHONE: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 The Applicant hereby affirms his intent to follow the original design for Secondary access to the Plat of Liberty Gardens as negotiated with King County. This original design for the 162nd Ave Extension, was submitted to the King County Hearing Examiner under the scheduled July 17, 2008 Plat Hearing; and under the Terms and Conditions of the Liberty Annexation to abide by previous approvals/agreements/codes of DOES Staff. The Applicant has no interest in altering the project to take any access from 1641h Ave SE and will in no way participare in any future improvement of that right-of-way. History of 162"d Ave Extension and Area Storm Water Issues The Applicant has expended considerable time and cost to perfect the 162"d Ave Extension option while workign closly with King County Staff to address several significant design issues. In researching the cause of the flooding of the Gragg, Chinn, Gammell properties (Appellants of the original Libert Garden SEPA), with resulting deluge of storm water down the west side of the 162"d Ave SE corridor, the root cause was discovered to be an illegal diversion (1975) of storm water by Leroy Nabor (deceased), located 900' northwest of the SW corner of the Liberty Gardens Plat. Mr. Nabor owned a septic tank installation company and used his construction equipment to direct storm water on the west side of 1601h Ave SE to the east-side. Since the area was sparsely settled, this illegal act went undetected for decades. As a result. all the storm water from five plats northward {Hamilton Place. Evendell. Liberty Grove I and II. and Nichols Place)-fronting the1601h Ave- corridor. is now diverted east to the 162"a Ave corridor. The flow path is across the Smith Property (Parcel 1457500110); thence through a 24" culvert along the inside of the Chinn and Gragg north property line; thence down the 162"d Ave right-of-way to 1441h Street. In 1979, this storm water flooded the swimming pool of a property on the south side of 144th Street. As a means to quiet the complainant, King County Roads dug a 140' x 40' x 3' pond directly in the 162nd Ave right-of- way, just north of 144th Street. Approximately 80% of the water flowing westward along the 144th Street culverts is due to this illegal diversion. This problem can be significantly mitigated by activating a now inactive existing culvert system along 1601h Ave. The right-of-away north of SE 142"d Place, is now under the purview of Renton through the Liberty Annexation; the remainder connecting to 1441h Street under the purview of King County. King County Sensitive Areas Staff originally required the Applicant to treat this storm water as a regulated stream, left in its eroded state as a result of storms that overtopped the temporary pond, including the culvert on the north side of 1441h Street. This compromised the integrity of the future roadway within the 162nd Ave Extension. Negotiations with Steve Bottheim and Nick Gillen (Environmental), Kris Langley (Traffic), and Bruce Whittaker (Drainage) eventually allowed the Applicant to tight-line this storm water just before it commingles with the Sensative Area (SA) stream crossing the swale at the southwest corner of the Liberty Gardens Plat. Since that time, the Applicant has alocated considerable resources to achieving an approved preliminary design to meet the projects as well as the neighborhoods needs. History of l 62na Ave Extension and Area Storm Water Issues 2 r -·-__ , __ '---h ,<' ," !:,} ,, y I i-:,,tt·· t ~iifi ',". "' > • ,, ~ . ; 1 J ~:W' ~> I ,,,,, r,:·1 r1i ···-:::-;-:--···~-----L .. Att~"hment -A Ba 1usen -Park Access Exhib1 •r , __ ._ -----••M .. >o>o _ _,,., ., ' OAVID M. f'ETAE en s 2r.JAO CT DES MOINES. WA 98198 (253) 946~19 Attachment -B Renton -Liberty Ai (ation Informational Letter CITY OF RENTON-RESIDENT INFORMATION Libertv Annexation ;_,., • AfumlAnnexation .. · ....... • . ·. •• •. . · . •· . ... . .. . . .. . ..· .· ... . . •• .. · · Reritonl$ p!eaied t<:1"1e.lC,Qme reside!lts inthe Lihcrtv .1n11cxatian area to the city;!he annexation willbe effective on• . · Au~sr)l; ~Q08, Nniresul 4 the ;irea will now receive local. go,;e~mentservices from the City ofRentoninsteado(!6ng; County. On August i 1th, properties and responsibilities for servfoe transfer from Kilig County to the City ofRertton,f&.r " streets, parks, library, and police. Renton's Mayor and City Council will be your elected city officials.You may wonder what services will change and what will stay the same. Expc>et to see changes in direct local government services, including police response, parks and recreation, street maintenance, land use pennlts and planning, and library services. Most residents will see a slight decline in the overall local taxes they pay today. Residents.will see no change in school district boundaries, water and sewer service, fire and emergency services or King Count:y.Metro bus service. BACKGROUND ..... The 199:73 acre Liberty Annexation is located in the City's East Renton Plate-0u area. The originlll l0%NillkeofJntent' to Annex petition was submitted in May 2007. On July 9, 2007, the City Council met wit~J)roponents and accepted the proposed annexation subject to boundary expansion to the west to include the Hig;l!Lands Estates subdivision. ·. Annexation · proponents sub11.1itted the 60% Direct Petition to Annex 011 October 25,.2007,. A public hearing. was held on January 28, 2()0$. The petition was approved by the Boundary Re,icw Board for King County effective May 29, 2008. Atthe rei,,ular Cify Council meeting of May 14, 2008, Council adoplcd the Ordinance effectuating the annexation as of August Jl, 2008. POLICE Wlrar will hupre11 nich poli.·e sen•ices? As always. ple;t;c call 9-1-1 in the case of emergency or to report any suspicious activity. The Renton Police Department will respond to calls in your area starting June 11th. Renton has expanded its patrol districts, each staffed with one officer 24 hours a day. Avemge response time to highest priority calls is about 2.S minutes. Fl.RE & EMERGENCY SERVICES Has annexation qffectedfire and emergeney.srm'iccs'! Rcsidcntswill see no change in fire and emergency medical.· services. Response time and services will be the same as prior to annexation. LIBRARJES Can J keep using the King County libraries? Why isn't l/enronpart of King County Library System? The two librnfy systems have a long-standing reciprocal borrowing a greemcnt that provides full borrowing privileges at. bQth systems' libraries for all residents. The City of Renton has provided independent library services to city residents fr()m its two branch libmries since King County Library System (KCLS ), a separate library distri<;t, wasfonned. Both library systenis have a commitinent. to provide the libitu'y services that residents value. TW() studies~ere begun in2007 to planfor the future ofllentohllb.raoes;• A cross-use study detennincd there was an imbalatice itt the number ofitems checked Otttfroll! ; • ';:~:; KCLS by Renton residents versus the pumber checked ottl from.Renton libraries by KCLS patrons, The second si]illYis Renton'slibrary masterplanningprocess,·expcctcd to be completed in 2008 that will set the course for;the futurel:if; R¢nton libraries. PARKS & RECREATION What has changed about parks and recreation scnfrcs? Newly annexed residents now qualify for lower resident recreation fees. No parks will transfer to the city with annexatipn. BUILDING PERMITS ZONING ....... • .·••. · • 1lowwillthe1¢ea}Je;:,:/1.nedfor land use? Thcci1y has reviewed King County zoning irithcarea to deienninehow to amen.d ~e~tonii:':annprehensive Plan to create zoning fi,r your area. Searohwww.rentonwa.gov to review the adopted zoµipgf<)r your property. · · dofiic:o~tt~cE . ............ . Jf/hieh Renton eodesare differ~rlt? The city has a team of staff to educate and support rc.qidents to comply with Some of the most CO!llJ:!lOll residential code violations include garbage accumulati9n, junk vehicles on private construction or gradi!lgwithouta.peimit, unsecured vacant bu~dings,low-hangirigtree branches growing over orstreets;Jllegal business operation, over-height fences. and illegal signs on private property. Fire code regulations at{f' ['ff similatto King County codes .. ADDRESS CHANGES .•· . . · ••. · . . · Will my address change? .. S,mle addresses in nt,w I y am,cxed areas will not change .. Jf ypµrs happens to be one that require an address change, you will find enclosed a separate Jetter lrom the City notifying you and providing the addressing infortruition. · · NEIGIIBORUOO.O !"~<>GRAM How can my neighborhood becomepartof the Rcnron Neighborhood Program? The city recogniws and supports neighborhoods through its Neighborhood Program. The prn!.,'l1Ull helps citizens make improvements through neighborhood grants, and facilitates neighborhood pic,nics, bringing neighbors together for food and fun. Interested groups can organize a neighborhood association and apply to be a recognized neighborhood. TAX&. FEE CHA."iGES WITH ANNEXATiflN What kinds of changes have there heen to fees OiUI 1incs :' Taxes for the average resident should be about the same or lower, but residents will r,:1y taxes in different w:iy, , 11an before annexation. Collection of city property taxes, salesta'l:es, an..i wility ta.xes will begin after annexation. Business owners are now responsiblf forhcensing their business witn[t:ljil city, and residents are responsible to pay the city· s surface water utility .fees. ·· BUSINESS LICENSES What c·an husiness owners expect? Anyone conducl ing business in the City nf Renton, including ahome•based business, is now required to apply for a business license, The fee is based on the number of employees a company has within the Renton city limits. · · PET LICENSF..S Do Lneeil tQ Hcense my pets? Yes. Just as in King County, Ren1011 r'e(il¥res liccnsesfor dogs ll!ld cats ev,ery two ;,>eai:s .. The City cif Renton' s Finance Department can he Ip with your next re.tN\llaL · · SURFACE Wt\.TER . . ........ . HowdoesRentonr1:anag~ s'!lrjace water detention ponds? The City of Rentonwm be responsible for maintaining f;i;isting surface 1111lter,detention ponds that had bcCL1 owned, maintained or operated by King County ill the public rights- .<>f-iya.y, ~enton will seruiout separate quarterly billings to property owners. In most instances, the City of Renton ®nll~~ Wl!ltermtesare lower than King County's. ·· · HOME SECURITY SYSTEMS The City of Renton requires by ordinance the regi s1 rat inn or all security systems'.. Download an application from the City website, and send it inU:i the.Police Department within 30 days ofannexation or installation to alleviate any late fees, There is no cost for the registration. · · GARBAGE SER.VICE Your current solid waste hauler will con\inueto provide service for the next seven years, After that, iho City contractor will begin garbage collection in your neighborhood. Attac .. -ient -C Rent _ Liberty Annexation Map 0 c -0 C: :, 0 co D 11 C: 0 Attacl-"'lent -D dmp, inc. DMP 005 Vacation request letter (FORMERLY DALEY ENGINEERING CO.} -----------------BE -DBE ••• May 10, 2005 DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE.INC. ENGINEERING-PLANNING-SURVEYING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 -:>: "' = = Clerk. of the Council -Road Vacation Room 1039 KC Courthouse L f;) <.n ;;8 :x ~-, ""' rn -.: 516 Third Ave. ,:-.1 0 c.--::.n Seattle, WA 98104 :Tl rf1 -1,-~ ' -<-::::') ::,; :,:,a < ::i:: RE: Proposal to vacate a portion of 162nd and 164th Ave. SE ("") r.1 0 '?. --c: :z: n I'~ N Dear Council Members: On behalf of my client, we are requesting a partial vacation of 162nd and 164th Ave. SE in unincorporated King County. This vacation request is being submitted in conjunction with the Liberty Gardens prelimina,y plat. (L04P0034). Liberty Gardens is a proposed 38 lot prelimina,y plat in the R-4 zone. It is our position that each of the requested rights-of-way (ROW) serves no useful purpose, or would cause significant environmental impact if devebj..,ced. 164th Ave. SE -We are requesting that the County vacate an undeveloped 30' wide segment of ROW that extends approximately 655 feet along the eastern bounda,y of the subject property. This portion of 164th terminates at the southwest comer of Liberty High School. The property to the east is King County owned park. land. Previous discussions with County Staff have indicated a desire to provide pedestrian access, through the park. property, to the High School for children living south of Liberty Gardens. To accommodate this desire, the Applicant is willing to construct a 1 O' paved path along the west edge of the County Park. Land, connecting to Liberty High School. This improved path would eliminate any need for retaining the remaining portion of 164th Ave. SE for pedestrian purposes. Liberty Garden will construct two internal pedestrian connections to the new walking path to provide additional connectivity from the west. It would appear that the east side of 1641h has already been vacated and become part of the Park property and that the northern extent was vacated as part of the adjacent Dickenson Plat. 162nd Ave. SE -We are also requesting that the County vacate an undeveloped, 30' wide, segment of ROW that extends approximately 490 feet along the western boundary of the subject property. This portion of 162nd crosses an existing Class Ill stream, and an associated Class II wetland as it proceeds south. Beyond the subject property, the undeveloped ROW proceeds down a significant hill. Both of these environmental features make further development of 16z>d Ave SE. problematic and Staff from the environmental Section of DOES have expressed concern over. the impacts. The development of an east- west connector street, in conjunction with future development, between 160th and 162nd Ave. CJ SE would provide adequate connectivity for the area and would have a far less intrusive impact on the environment The portion of 16:fd Ave. SE that is proposed to remain as ROW will be developed to provide public access to Liberty Gardens. At. this time, several additional developments are proposed north of the Liberty Garden subdivision and will likely be responsible for development of the northern reaches of 162"d Ave. SE, beyond the Liberty Gardens development Compensation -In accord with 14.40.020, the Applicant is prepared to compensate King County, under a Class ·c• Road Vacation regulations, and pay 50% of the appraised value for the property. Under KCC 14.40.050, the Council shall place all Class ·c· vacation funds towards the acquisition of open space. Section 14.40.020 (E) allows the Council to waive all or a portion of the required compensation if it benefits King County to do so. Under those conditions, the Applicant would be willing to provide recreational improvements within the adjoining King County park property in an amount equal to the value of the requested Class ·c· road vacation. In exchange, King County would waive that portion of the required compensation for the requested vacation under 14.40.020 (E). We feel that this arrangement will greatly benefit both the applicant as well as the neighborhood by allowing for the improvement of an existing county recourse at a time when County Parks are experiencing severe cutbacks. Please see the attached Vacation Exhibit We hope that this proposal will meet with your approval and look forward to presenting our case at the Public Hearing If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 333-2200. ~~· ;I;<:::-~~~~~ Hans Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. t'age l ot I (® King County Home News Fi94 1di4M Comments Search he information induded on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and Is subject to change without notice. ng County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of &Ut:h nformation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages inciuding, but not limited to, ~t revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this·map. My sale of this map or Information on is ma is ohiblted except by written ermission of Kin Coun King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments 1 ~ By visiting this and other King County web page$, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Clie... 4/13/2005 CITY OF RE~TON Receipt ' 1277 '):Y i . .1 " ~@~ City Clerk Division ·;R + 1055 South Grady Way dl"' ~ Renton, WA 98057 I s---c3. ~N'fo 425-430-6510 Date D Cash 0CheckNo. D Copy Fee D Notary Service d: I l ] {§(Appeal Fee D --------- Description: / ~ Q j \ I /'-· 1A IY -Z.)o -CS(;·~. \ A.-\.-_,_, ; ,\,.,,, 1 '-··\c-. 1:,1 b------, Funds Received From: --"" . \ ' ) Name \ ,X:,,,./, r,, C 1 \; .£L --\-, 1 -Q . Address 5:? 11 ':;, a) :; ( c,j c~~-r City/Zip · 1...:::. ;'\"-c.,"-''' \ \i\ , • r . ; .... , .... ,.,y f\ECJ::VH:_, . iv•' · \).ERK'S C)Fi::-1c;;; October 14, 2008 1 . . /· 1· 1· I ' \,, l•·-'-\ t -"·_··"'--<. r ( · 't--~_\ Norm & Patricia Gammell, 16043 SE 142nd Place, Rich Lea Crest lot #9 and # 10 Donald & Andrea Gragg, 16046 SE 142°• Place, Rich Lea Crest lot #11 and #12 John & Nenita Ching, 16038 SE 142nd Place, Rich Lea Crest, Lot# 13 Norbert Mohr, 16224 SE 144"' Street, Parcel #1457500156 Renton WA 98059 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 RE: Liberty Gardens, Preliminary Plat File #LUA08-093 & L04P0034 Dear Sir/Madam: The City notified us that the appeal period for Liberty Gardens will be held open until October 27, 2008. We submit the following list of concerns for consideration during this appeal period. We have reviewed the "Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan of Liberty Gardens" and "Preliminary Road Improvement Plan and Profile of 162nd Ave. SE Extension" and we need to bring to your attention our neighborhood concerns about the building of the Liberty Gardens subdivision and placement of a new road on an un-opened right-of-way of 162nd Ave. SE. In our discussion below, we shall refer to the open ditch originating from the runoff of 160"' Ave. SE and running south-easterly through Parcel # 145 7 5 00 110 ("Smith Property''), to the north property line of Rich Lea Crest Lot # 13 ("Ching Property"), and east along the north property line of Lot # 12 ("Gragg Property"), until the course turns southerly down the un-opened right-of-way of 162"• Ave. SE. The existing ditch on 162nd Ave. SE varies in size from 10 feet wide/4 feet deep to 6 feet wide/10 feet deep until it reaches the existing DNR pond on the north side of SE 144"' St. l ~-L·· -•. . . t: I. Due to heavy runoff originating from Nichols Place, Evendell and Liberty Grove, which passes through Smith Property, about 5 inches of silt has accumulated in the ditch at the Ching Property during the last 2 years. The silt will continue downstream, and into the proposed 18" pipe running along the planned road, 162°• Ave. SE. 2. The proposed 18" storm pipe to and from Catch Basin #7 will not facilitate the water flowing through the Ching Property and Gragg Property. The ditch in the Ching Property leads into a 24" grate at the edge of the Gragg Property. Due to drainage from recent developments north of their property (Nichols Place, Evendell and Liberty Grove), the Chings have seen the stormwater flow reach the top of this pipe. ·1',.i.! ·'-~ .. . . ! ; -~ _, _ __. •• ,_ f_ l'i\:,J City of Renton Hearing Examiner Liberty Gardens, Preliminary Plat File #LUA08-093 & L04P0034 October 14, 2008 Page2 of3 3. There is no ditch on the west side of the proposed 162'd Ave. SE, north ofGragg's property (Rich Lea Crest Lots #11 and #12). How will the stormwater flow into the Type 2 catch basin at the northeast comer of Gragg's property? 4. Why is the ditch on the west side of the proposed 16200 Ave. SE road being tighlined? During 9 months of the year, this large ditch carries very large flows. 5. Where will surfacewater from the west side of the proposed road go when the road is higher or at the same elevation as the existing grade of lots 10, II, and 12 of Rich Lea Crest. 6. The Liberty Gardens plans do not take into account the 12" drain pipe that runs between lots 9 and IO (the Gammell property) of Rich Lea Crest that drains the catch basin system on SE 14200 Place to the existing drainage ditch on 16200 Ave. SE. The plans also do not take into account the 6 inch drain pipes on Gragg' s property now flowing into the drainage ditch. 7. Will the wet/detention vault hold at least the equivalent of surfacewater volume held by the original DNR Pond? 8. Property owner Norbert Mohr (Parcel #1457500156) is very concerned the wet/detention vault on Tract B of Liberty Gardens outfalls into the ravine which travels approximately 500 feet to the south and turns to the west to enter the existing detention pond on the right-of-way of 16200 Ave. SE,just north of SE 144,. St. As the ditch from the ravine turns towards the west, the grade of the slope in this ditch flattens out and additional flow will flood the northwest comer of the basement level of their house and erode their land. 9. What landscaping/berms/fencing will be placed to protect the property of the subject owners from persons entering their properties through the proposed access road on 16200 Ave. SE. Presently, there is no access from the on-opened right-of-way. Hopefully, the City will be sensitive about retaining the privacy of the property owners on the west and east side of the newly proposed 162nd Ave. SE. 10. It was also brought to our attention that the alignment of the proposed road partially falls in an "Erosion Hazard Area" per the "Sensitive Areas Portfolio" of King County. (See attached map). 11. King County has downstream analysis of this waterway on 162nd Ave. SE for not only the new plats of Nichols Place, Evendell and Liberty Grove, but also flooding problems on the property located north-west of the Smith Property. K.C. DOT had put in a larger pipe to prevent further flooding to this property. Do you have access to the downstream analysis for these projects and the flooding problem, as the reports will reveal the substantial flow and erosion in the existing ditch on 16200 Ave. SE.? City of Renton Hearing Examiner Liberty Gardens, Preliminary Plat File #LUA08-093 & L04P0034 October 14, 2008 Page3 of3 We would appreciate your attention to these matters; and we request that our concerns are addressed in the upcoming appeal process when reviewed by the City's Hearing Examiner for the preliminary plat of Liberty Gardens. Yours truly, Owners of property located at 16043 SE· 00 Pl., Lots 9 & 10 ~I/ patriciae Owners of prorerty located at 16224 SE 144 Street, Parcel #1457500156 ~µ N rtMohr cc: Mayor Denis Law Owners of property located at Owners of property located at 16046 SE 142nd Pl., Lots 11 & 12 16038 SE 142"d Pl., Lot 13 1··,~~ " ; __,l,:,syyjy·_ onald Graggl--JK.w.Ching \ .'-f~,.'::,'.I'. I.'.':.• !•l..':..1.f - M....J ~ ~ ,1£.HJ.1 ·' .',.':i.!i(L:.1:1~\l :_·,,.-'::0:1: 1.•:; .' ·i -· .:'~.· '·'•'''·' ,l,1.;''._l..' .'•f: ... ·:l.1.'•:C.:.' HJ'·t .•.1::_._r·:,;1:.1.• :~1 .'•fJ-'t.: ,•,1.,,•:,:):•.• .. •.• SE:.'l:44tHS1 + .'fjll!J::, ~'J~'!:b'cl .1 :iG .f topography vicinity of PN #1457500150 Olf() ~ ~) . ' '1~,.'~,:<!I .' ,f:_i • • ~i Aoo. L1 Sert, G-.-,.~t ~ ,1,/,1~''..I ~ anr ----i' " ,, ,'.'!d•'!'!''"' 21 ,1(j,1~·r ~::/.'~1·1•,:1 .'fJ:.iJI:!···· .,. i~ ··~·:).'!,':.l:.l.':i:.1 .f;.~.lj,l ·~:..i.!,''..1:1.':;; ' t? 'f.i:. -' .'6:.1.·~ .'~':.,}.''.l\l,1f.;'.,I J __ 1,ffi /._':!/.":.l'.I.' !!.I Gr:1.:.~::;J~ - /~':.J./,"'.l'..1.!~l'.i ~'\ ' /~':).!.':_1:.1:,,1t·:1 q.~ ':.::.1_· .' •,:·1·· ·-.,:i:1.• _·.; .'·IJaG • '!_1,'•'?1: !•/,;,' ~ .'•.::J.!'.' ','•1:;•;-:' 1•:.i:..:1 _l(.'•i. 'l:1:.1:.1:1 /.-, .. ·.s~ t V • ' • • • ~ ,.;,,.-,_,,,,,,, .. , f\.A, ffi&j ~-f' ~'!.I/ ,' ··~·::_.:_1:1,•t;:.1 ·'·•~·-':'..:i:1.,~··• i:,':1'.' Renton .'·i •. 'h',• .'o'_:h· .. ·., .'·,:.•.":_,:1:1' AR.SA ,l•f.:'-1' ,t .':'.l.'f;:.1:J:J'..1-t:.I .':! .'(:'~':':'/.::! i- • . Fet.o'Si'°'"' ~~..a g -.1.;::.,.·:.,:.1:1.1~,: .. ,•,r.!~t/ .'·U!".:' ,',/:,)i,'.J!l!~'.! !,f;?·r/ !U.1t:~1m.1:..i.1:.1 /•f:.Ji:.,:.1:J,' ~·.: ·' :'.l.'(,:.1:..1::.i:.1~·:.1 .' 6'J;!~I Hi!J~'t.l ,10~1Jfj ., .. '.!-'.~_1:,!cl!_l-1-i .,6:.1.:! .'!.l.'f.i:.1:.1:,1:1.•:1 !ll ':~ -.: /;; ~ H~':>!.I .' ~.1.• r.::.1:..1: 1:1,:_• ::1_1!;:_l'.l;.1:lr,l'.I ~t;,,~l{;i .'6.'.'·l -·.':.l.'!.::1:1:.1:.1~: ~A :ffiJi ,, .. ..: ••• 'J ·~ N•ltl,·' .1'.'JC:: .'.~.''.I! !(,I • t: I -,: • • ... ,,,:1., .1\J/'l,':! .''.l.':J~I .•H!.16 ,I !1,1 / 3 .'[I .l ~!l .•.;:./t~~f.:i,' I fi(l(!i ~---r-,. ,1.i,1.i_• .•:·1~_1! .•:.J .' ;'..I .' ,f,f,lr} .' :.ii::.• .i.'(1.•c:1 .,1,:;.•,r.~ -'.:';:.'.:''..1:J(l.!J.' i ·i'.J.'~,~.1:..1.1 '.i:";! ,lfj~':.•;J • .' .!~'.!'.l:'i~• .. ·:.1:.1 ~ " <',<'.I L,J < ~ ·'t: '"'"" ~:rr,,1 -- .·.~-·.i:i:,~:h•:, i;~: :, ;•~: .. :.,:1:. ··-·· ,.. ,'·l..':.1(1 l ',,.., "" OC ,.o,o OT .'i_:'.),~,:.1:,,C.' 1_,i.:'~':.1 ·-·"""X:-"-' I ····--~ .•·.cl-_, :h.':• .'!.:.;:,i.; s: ,::..n;-; =-h .I f;,f!llJ l(,:!J:'.,:'.,:l)lh',''_I "'- :,I .'·f·l~':J ~1± .,. 1 it'!c \Cl .tntl l<lllq Cciun1)' .'•Jt.'.~J:'.IJ:"gJ l•M<'!J H,HJ!/ 0 23911 h1~.• !'.1!1!1 '•I ,1,f,f.' ,' COMMENTS: GREEN SHADED area ts SAO Erosion Hazard Area PER Kl NG COUNTY 1 ne information Included on this map has been compiled by King County siiff from a variety o1 sources and is subject 1D change without notice. Ktog County "makes no representations or warranties, express or Implied, as to accuracy, completeness, tlmellnel!la, or rights to the use of sueh kiformaUon. This document Is not Intended for use as a survey product. King County shaU not be llable for any general, special, Indirect, incidents~ or consequenllal damages including, "1#1101 limited to, lost revenues or lost profits muffing from the use or misuse of the Information conteined on lhls map. Any sale of this map or Information on this map .Is prohibited excapl by written permission of King County. Date: 81312008 Source: King County iMAP. Sensitive Areas (http:llwww.metrokc.gov/GIS/IMAP) tt1 King County • D Cash p{CheckNo. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 JLfJ-2 D Copy Fee ~Appeal Fee Receipt N~ .1225 D Notary Service O ________ _ Description: -~DJLf~~==-:\:0~:::__.l.!\\~bc::;X'.L. _-_ ___:::LU~A-~-=0_,.2'---'-cfJ"""'---3"""'-;=-----,,,--- ( i,.h, c-~ Ge--,.,,.\iv-.D PA.o-L. · ., ---:\1J Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip Amount $ 7S-- ' Denis Law Mayor June 2, 2014. DR Horton 12910 Totem Lake Blvd. NE, Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 ri f, ---' Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Receipt of Installation Surety Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA08-093 To Whom It May Concern: · Surety Devices: This letter is also confirming the City has received the following surety device: Wetland Mitigation Installation: $13,453.45 The surety devices will be re.leased as successful installation of the_project has been confirmed. Next Steps: Work with Rohini Nair in the Plan Review Section to ob_tain construction permits and begin work on wetland mitigation installation consistent with the approved plan. Mitigation Installation and Approval: Once the wetland mitigation has been installed (plants, signage, fencing, etc.} pursuant to the approved plan, please have your wetlands specialist provide me with written verification that the installation is in conformance with the approved plan. As Built Plans for the Mitigation Area: A copy of the as-built plans of the approved mitigation plan, prior to recording; unless an installation surety device is provided or if plantings are installed as exactly per plan. Monitoring and Maintenance Surety Amount: In order to provide you with the ·amount of security necessary for the maintenance and monitoring of the wetland mitigation plantings, signage, and fencing, we will need a copy of the signed maintenance and monitoring contract for this work. · A draft (followed by a final) maintenance and monitoring contract (or contracts) for our review prior to execution of the contract shall be provided. The draft contract language must ensure compliance with both the performance standards, of the Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., mitigation plan as well the maintenance and monitoring standards of the Renton Municipal Code. The scope of the contract must clearly cover the cost of plant maintenance and replacement as well. The language in the contract must also guarantee that "structures, improvements. and mitigation perform satisfactorily for a period of 5 years" (e.g: add provisions for plant replacement and weed removal referencing compliance with the survival rates noted in the final approved wetland mitigation plan. The contract must include quarterly mon_itoringreports for the first year and annual reports thereafter. The draft contract must be followed up with a final signed contract once the City approves the draft version. Once . ' . Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • the City approves the contract proposa(.the applicant will need to provide a.maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set oside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee sa.tisfactory performance for a minimum of fiv.e years. · Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: Once the mitigation project has been installed, please provide me with the wetland consult.ant's written confirmation of installation pursuant to the final approved mitigation plan. The date the City receives this written confirmation will constitute the beginning of the minimum 5-year _maintenance and monitoring · period. -Wetland Information Needed on _Final Plat Map: RMC Section 4-3-050G3 requires that all critical areas and their buffers be placed in_ either .a Nat_ive Growth Protection Tract or Native Growth Protection Easement. Please send all required information to my attention. Feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, _---~~ jTim=os · ·. Senior Planner cc: Meryl Kamowski, Wetland Resources Rohini Nair~ Plan Reviewer LUA08-093 Denis Law Mayor March 20, 2014 DR Horton 12910 Totem Lake Blvd. NE, Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Approval of Final Wetland Mitigation Plan/Proposed Maintenance & Monitoring Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA08-093 To Whom It May Concern: Mitigation. Plan Approval: _We have reviewed and approved the final wetland mitigation plan/monitoring proposal for liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat dated April 29, 2014 and received by the City on May 6, 2014. I have enclosed an approved copy for your records. The mitigation project shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan prior to recording. Next Steps: Work with Jan Illian in the Plan Review Section to obtain construction permits and begin work on wetland mitigation installation consistent with the approved plan. Installation Surety Amount: In order to provide you with the amount of security·netessary for the installation of the wetland mitigation plantings, signage, and fencing; we will need a copy of the signed installation ~ontract for this work Qrior to engineering permit approval. Once the City approves the contract proposal, the applicant will need to provide an insta.llation surety devi_ce {a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee the installation of the mitigation project. _Mitigation Installation and Approval: Once the wetland mitigation has been installed (plants, . signage, fencin·g, etc.) pursuant to the approved plan, please have your wetlands specialist provide me with written verification that the installation is in conformance with the approved plan. As Built Plans for the Mitigation Area: A copy of the as-built plans of the approved mitigation plan, prior to recording; u_nless an installation surety device is provided or if plantings are installed as exactly per plan. Monitoring and Maintenance Surety Amount: In order to provide you with the amount of security necessary for the maintenance and monitoring of the ·wetland mitigation plantings,· signage, and fencing, we will need .a copy of the signed mainienance and monitoring contract' for this work. A draft {followed by a final) maintenan_ce and monitoring contract (or contracts) for our review prior to execution of the contract shall be provided. The draft contract language must ensure compliance with .both the performance standards · of the Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., mitigation plan as well the maintenance and monitoring standards of the Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Renton Municipal Code. The scope of the contract. must clearly cover the cost of plant maintenance and replacement as well. The language in the contract must.also guarantee that "structures, improvements, and mitigation perform sai:isfactorily for a period of 5 years" (e.g. add provisions for plant replacement and weed removal referencing compliance with the survival rates noted in the final approved wetland mitigation plan. The contract must include quarterly monitoring reports for the first year and annual reports thereafter. The draft contract must be followed up with a final signed contract once the City apprf)ves the draft version. Once the City approves the contract proposal, the applicant will need to provi,de a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee satisfactory performance for a minimum of five years. Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: Once the mitigation project has been . installed, please provide me with the wetland consultant's written confirmation ofinstallation purs_uant to the final approved mitigation plan. The date the City receives this writteri confirmation will constitute the beginning of the minimum 5-year maintenarice and monitoring period. Wetland Information Needed on Final Plat Map: RMC Section 4-3-0SOG3 requires that all . critical areas and their buffers be placed in either a Native Growth Protection Tract or ·Native Growth Protection Easement. Please send all required information to my attention. Feel free to contact.me at 425-430-7219 if you have any questions regarding this Jetter. Sincerely, -,~~~ ~o)ie Timmons_ · Senior Planner cc: Meryl Kamowski, Wetland-Resources Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer LUAOB-093 Wethnd "/(B8ources, !He. ------------------~ " Delineation/ Mffigation / Restoralion I Habitat Creation I Permi1 Ass1slance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337.3174 Fax(425)337-3045 ADDENDUM TO THE LIBERTY GARDENS CRITICAL AREAS ANALYSIS REPORT AND CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN FOR DR HORTON-LIBERTY GARDENS \'\IR!Job #13122 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 Prepared For: DR Horton Attn: Kyle Lublin 12910 Totem Lake Blvd NE #220 Kirkland WA 98034 November 6, 2013 Revision I: February 20, 2014 Revision 2: April 29, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I SITE DESCRIPTION WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOILS 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION 2 DESCRIPTION OF FAUNA USING THE SITE 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 FuNCTIONS AND VALUES 4 KING COUNTY CODE -2 IA.24.330 WETLANDS: PERMITTED ALTERATIONS 5 MITIGATION SITE SELECTION 7 WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION 8 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 9 BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION I 0 PROJECT NOTES 10 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (fESC) 10 PLANTING NOTES 12 CONTINGENCY PLAN 14 MAINTENANCE 15 PROJECT MONITORING 16 PROJECT SUCCESS AND COMPLIANCE 17 USE OF THIS REPORT 18 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION MAP SHEET 1/2 SHEET2/2 .. INTRODUCTION Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) was contracted by DR Horton to prepare a wetland and buffer mitigation plan for the proposed Liberty Gardens development. Approved wetland delineation and ratings are discussed in the Liberty Gardens Critical Areas Analysis Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan, prepared by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. (2004). At the time the original report was written and approved, the project site was part of unincorporated King County. The project site has since been annexed into the City of Renton, but the wetland and stream categories and buffers remain vested to the King County Code regulations in place at the time of report approval. The subject site is 8.9-acres located east of l 60•h Ave SE and south of SE 13 7,h Place, in Renton, Washington (portion of Section 14, Township 23N, Range 05E, W.M.), and is comprised of King County Tax Parcels #1457500145 and 1457500150. The intent of this addendum is to provide an updated project description and mitigation plan that pertains to the current site plan. WRI staff utilized the following materials in order to prepare this addendum: • • • Liberty Gardens Critical Areas Analysis Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan, written by B- 12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. and dated November 19, 2004. Revised Site Plans, including lot layout and storm water revisions, from CPH Consultants . City of Renton SEPA Determination-Determination ef Nonsignificance -Mitigated (D.NS-M). File number LUAOS-093, ECF, PP. More detailed information regarding the Liberty Gardens wetland and stream delineation and ecological assessment can be found within the body of the originally approved report. SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) conducted site investigations in June and July 2013 on two parcels located east of 160th Ave SE and south of SE 137,h Place, in Renton, WA. The purpose of these investigations was to verify that current boundaries of the wetland are sufficiently similar to those that were previously delineated. Observations from the site visit confirm that current boundaries and conditions within the wetland are nearly identical to previously approved wetland boundaries and conditions. The original delineation was completed by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. in 200 I with a supplemental verification performed in 2004. Information about the wetlands and stream presented in this report is a combination of the original B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. report and WRI site observations. The subject site is accessible from the terminus of 162nd Ave SE. Surrounding land use includes a new development project north of the subject site and residential areas to the west and south. Immediately adjacent to the east of the site is Maplewood Heights Park. The 162nd Avenue SE right-of-way continues south from the end of the improved right-of-way (ROW) as a combination ofa narrow gravel road and pedestrian path that connects to SE l 44<h Street. Presently the site is relatively undisturbed and is vegetated with a mixed canopy of non-mature forest. Topography of the subject site generally slopes south/ southeast. Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -Liberty Gardens WRI#J3122 Wetland Resources~ Inc. November 2013 Reviswn #2: April 2014 WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION Two wetlands and one stream are present within and adjacent to the project site. Wetland A/B is a slight depression located on either side of the stream in the southwest area of the site. Wetland C is a depressional area near the northwest corner of the site in the ROW and extends west of the ROW. The on-site stream is an intermittent non-salmonid stream, which enters the site from the west, flows southeast, and continues off-site. These features were identified in the Liberty Gardens Critical Areas Analysis and Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc, November 19, 2004. This report and subsequent King County approvals established vesting for the wetland and stream categories and their associated buffers. A summary of these categories and associated buffers are as follows: Wetland A/B -Class 2 -50 foot buffer Wetland C -Class 2 -50 foot buffer Intermittent Stream. -Class 3 -25 foot buffer DESCRIPTION OF THE SOILS The soils underlying this site are mapped in the Soil Survey of King County Area Washington, 1973 edition as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC). The AgC soil unit is described as rolling with irregularly shaped areas ranging from IO to about 600 acres in size. The A horizon ranges form very dark brown to dark brown. The B horizon is dark brown, grayish brown, and dark yellowish brown. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Available water capacity is described as low. Included within this soil unit are the poorly drained Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila, Shalcar soils, and Alderwood soils that have slopes more gentle or steeper than 6 to 15 percent. Included soil units make up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION The on-site wetlands are comprised of forest vegetation communities. Dominant vegetation on the site is represented by young deciduous/coniferous forest. Typical vegetation within Wetland A/B and Wetland C is represented by red alder (A/nus rubra, FAC), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC), western red cedar (Thuja phcata, FAC), red-osier dogwood (Comus sericea, FACW), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), lady fern (Athyrium falix-jemina, FAC), piggyback plant (Tolmiea menziesii, FAC), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW). Vegetation in the non-wetland portions of the site is also primarily forest. Typical vegetation consists of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, F ACU) Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU), western red cedar (Thuja plicata, Fae), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC) Himalayan blackberry (Rubus anneniucus, FACU), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACV), salal (Gaultheria shallon, FACV), western sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica, FAC) and bleeding heart (Dicentraformosa, FACV). Critical Area Stw[y Addendum DR Horton -Liherry Gardens WRl#J3122 2 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 DESCRIPTION OF FAUNA USING THE SITE Bird species expected to use this site include: Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus mzgratorius), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), black- capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), hairy woodpecker (Puoides villosus), downy woodpecker (Dendrocopus villosus), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), brown creeper (Certhia Americana), swainson's thrush (Hyocu:hla ustulata), starling (Stumus vulgaris), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax dijficilus), evening grosbeak (Hesperiphona vespertina), western tanager (Piranga ludovu:iana), barred owl (Strix varia), and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). Mammals expected to use this site include, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews (Sorex spp.), weasels (Mustela spp.), striped skunk (A1ephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis la/rans), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), black tailed deer (Odocoileus hcmionus columbianus), American Beaver (Castor canadensis), and eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus). Other wildlife expected to use this site include pacific tree frog (Hy/a regilla), northwestern salamander (Amby stoma gracile gracile), and rough-skinned newt ( Taricha granulosa granulosa). These lists are not meant to be all-inclusive and may omit species that currently utilize or could utilize the site. According to WDFW PHS maps (dated July 29, 2013), there are no ESA listed species within the project site. The closest recorded listed species resides in the Cedar River, approximately three- quarters of a mile from the project site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a 36-lot residential plat and associated infrastructure. In order to access the development, an additional section of 162nd Avenue SE ROW will need to be improved and widened beyond the existing gravel road. This road improvement will result in permanent impacts to the Wetland C buffer. In order to accommodate a utility easement, a small portion of the Wetland A/B buffer will be reduced. Installation of a storm water pipe and outfall will temporarily impact a section of the Wetland A/B buffer. The proposed development does not include impacts to Wetland A/B, Wetland C, or the on-site stream. The Liberty Gardens project, including the required 162nd Ave SE improvements, was approved under a previous version of KCC. The version of KCC this project is vested under includes a list of permitted alterations to wetlands and buffers. The 162nd Ave SE improvements fall under the permitted road crossing alterations in section 2 lA.24.330.N. A detailed discussion of compliance with this section of KCC is presented in the King Counry Code -21A.24.330 Wetlands: Permitted Alterations section of this report. Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -Liberty Gardens WR!# 13122 3 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 FUNCTIONS AND VALVES Methodology The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains specifically to this site, but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to western Washington. Functions a:nd Values -Prefessional Opinion Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are stormwater control, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreational opportunities, and education. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below. Existing Conditions Wetland A/B -Category III Wetland A/B is a depressional wetland with a seasonal stream that functions as an outlet periodically. This wetland extends off-site to the west and appears to remain forested. This wetland slows stormwater runoff during high flow periods by storing water that would otherwise travel through the on-site stream. The diverse vegetation provides a bio-filtration function and quality wildlife habitat. Wetland A/B offers moderate to high levels of water quality improvement functions, low to moderate levels of hydrologic functions and moderate levels of wildlife habitat functions. Wetland C -Category III Wetland C is a depressional wetland with no outlet. An immature forest vegetation community primarily dominates the area adjacent to the ROW. This wetland extends away from the ROW and project site to the west. The depressional nature of this wetland allows it to store stormwater and slowly release it, which helps moderate downstream flows and reduce flood damage. The vegetation within the wetland area performs a bio-filtration function. This wetland is near residential and urban areas, providing an opportunity for it to improve water quality. A moderate diversity of native plant species provides the potential for the subject wetland to perform a high habitat function. This wetland currently provides a moderate level of functions and values. Buffer -Wetland A/B The on-site portion ofWetland A/B buffer is forested. Dense vegetation, quality canopy cover, native food sources and connectivity to other forested areas allow for this buffer to provide a moderate to high level of functions and values. Buffer -Wetland C The majority of the buffer associated with Wetland C is forested area on private property. The buffer for Wetland C within the ROW of 162nd Ave SE adjacent to the northwest corner of the Liberty Gardens project is less densely vegetated and contains a gravel road and drainage ditch. Considering this area of the buffer is disturbed and a ditch conveys stormwater away from the wetland, this section of buffer provides a low level of functions and values. Critual Area Study Addendum DR Horton -Liberry Gardens WRl#13122 4 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Post Development Functions and Values WetlandA/B Wetland A/B will continue to provide the same level ofhydrologic and water quality functions and values. The enhancement proposed for ',:Vet land A/B will expand the diversity of vegetation structure and increase the level of habitat functions and values provided by this wetland. Wetland C The wetland enhancement proposed in VVetland C will increase the stormwater infiltration and vegetation diversity of this area of the wetland. This will allow for Wetland C to provide a higher level of functions and values through additional food sources and increased water quality. Dense plantings within this area will provide greater protection for the area of Wetland C west of the enhancement. Buffer -Wetland A/B An additional 9,637 square feet of forested upland to the west of the standard Wetland A/B buffer area will be designated additional buffer for Wetland A/Band the on-site stream. This will preserve quality upland habitat adjacent to wetland area, which will continue to support local wildlife through native food sources and refuge. The increase in buffer area will increase the overall level of functions and values that the Wetland A/B and stream buffer provides. Buffer -Wetland C The proposed buffer enhancement planting will provide a greater diversity of vegetation within the right-of-way. Vegetation will slow stormwater as it moves toward the wetland and native shrubs and trees will provide refuge and food for wildlife. The buffer enhancement will allow the buffer to provide higher functions and values than it is presently providing. The dense plantings will allow for screening between the ROW and the wetland area. This will offer greater protection and stability for the associated wetland. KING COUNTY CODE-21A.24.330 WETLANDS: PERMITTED ALTERATIONS The version of KCC this project is vested under lists permitted alterations to wetland and buffer areas. Section 21A.24.330. states: Alterations to wetland and beffers mtry be allowed pursuant to KC. C. 2 JA.24. 07 5 or as.follows: ... N. Wetland road crossings mtry be allowed if: I. Ki.ng County determines that no alternative access is practical; 2. All crossings minimize impact to the wetland and provide mitigation .for unavoidable impacts through restoration, enhancement or replacement ef disturbed areas;- 3. Crossings do not change the overall wetland hydrology; 4. Crossings do not diminish the flood storage capacity ef the wetland; and 5. All crossings are constructed during summer low water periods. The proposed extension of 162nd Avenue SE meets the five requirements listed above as follows: Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horwn -Liherry Gardens WRl#l3122 5 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 1. The proposed improvement and extension of 162nd Ave. SE is located within an established right-of-way (ROW), which currently contains a gravel road. In the original Critical Area Study by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc., King County was requiring road improvements within the ROW of 162nd Ave SE. The area directly north of the subject property is already developed and the ROW of 162nd is currently improved up to the north property line of the project site. 2. The proposed crossing avoids directly impacting the wetland and only impacts the associated buffer. Mitigation provided in this current plan includes buffer enhancement, wetland enhancement, and designating additional forested area as wetland buffer. The proposed plan provides enhancement and replacement of the disturbed areas and is consistent with the mitigation measures discussed in the B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. report. The mitigation plan is designed to provide the highest level of protection to the impacted resource (Wetland C) and vicinity. The buffer and wetland enhancement immediately adjacent to 162nd Ave SE contains the greatest amount of enhancement possible, as the majority of the buffer and wetland are off-site and on private property. These enhancement plantings provide a physical buffer/barrier between the development and Wetland C. In order to provide additional habitat lost by the buffer reduction of Wetland C, 10,014 square feet of forested upland will be designated buffer for Wetland A/B and the on-site stream. This will preserve quality upland habitat adjacent to wetland area, which will continue to support local wildlife through native food sources and refuge opportunities. The table below lists impact minimization measures related to the 162nd Ave SE extension/improvement. Table l · Disturbance Minimization Proposed Potential Disturbance Lights Noise Toxic runoff Stormwater runoff Change in Water regime Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -liberry Gardens WR/# 13122 Activities/Cause of Disturbance • Residential use • Street lights • Residential use • Vehicle traffic • Residential use • Landscaping • 162nd Ave SE • Residential use • Landscaping • 162nd Ave SE • Lawns • Impermeable surfaces 6 Proposed Measures to Minimize Impacts Native plantings adjacent to 162nd Ave SE in the buffer and outer edge of wetland will screen the wetland from vehicle, street, and residential lights. Native plantings adjacent to 162nd Ave SE will reduce noise level that reaches Wetland C. All runoff from this new development will be collected/treated in a manner consistent with stormwater treatment standards and meets water quality standards in King County's 2005 Surface Water Design Manual. Stormwater will be collected/treated.in a manner consistent with King County's 2005 Surface Water Design Manual. No change in water regime anticipated as discussed below in #3 and #4. Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Pets/Human • Residential use Wetland and buffers will be enclosed in disturbance separate tracts. Fencing and NGPA signs will be installed alornr buffer ed1!e. 3. Wetland C will remain in its current state and therefore continue to provide the same amount of storm water storage and hydrological functions. The possible impact to this wetland's hydrologic regime could potentially come from the impact to the wetland buffer. However, the buffer adjacent to \\Tctland Chas already been disturbed. Within the ROW, an existing gravel road and drainage ditch are present, bisecting the east side of Wetland C buffer. The area of the project site that could (topographically) contribute stormwater runoff to Wetland C is the northwest corner, adjacent to the gravel road and ditch. This drainage ditch conveys water to the south, preventing it from moving west across the gravel road and into Wetland C. Therefore, the proposed development on the Liberty Gardens parcels will not affect the current hydrology of Wetland C. Figure 1: Existing conditions of ROW within Wetland C buffer 4. Wetland C will not be physically impacted therefore; the flood storage capacity of the wetland will not be altered. 5. The construction of this section of 162"d Ave. SE will take place during the dry season,June- September. MITIGATION SITE SELECTION The hydrologic unit defined for this project is the Cedar Main Urban sub basin (King County, 2011). While the in lieu fee program through King County currently has a project within the Cedar River watershed, it is outside of the Renton City limits and is not located within the hydrologic unit of the project. Additionally, both current Renton Municipal Code (RMC) and the previous KCC state the Critical Area Study Addendum DR Hor/an -Liberty Gardens WR!# 13122 7 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 priority for wetland and buffer mitigation is on-site mitigation. The City of Renton itself does not currently have a mitigation bank for private applicant use or an in-lieu fee program. Since there are no physical impacts to wetlands proposed for the development of this project, the priority of the proposed mitigation plan is to protect the resources on and within the vicinity of the project site. The combination of wetland enhancement, buffer enhancement, and designation of additional buffer will provide the wetlands associated with this project the desired protective measures to ensure no loss of functions and values provided by these resources. WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION To accommodate the improvements of 162nd Ave. SE, the applicant is proposing 4,791 square feet of permanent buffer impact to the buffer of Wetland C. This buffer impact will leave the eastern edge of Wetland C with minimal to no buffer, causing the eastern area of Wetland C to function as buffer for the western section of the wetland (paper fill). The estimated area of "paper fill" is 4,500 square feet. To compensate for the loss of protection due to the buffer impact and potential loss of wetland functions the adjacent section of wetland provides, a combination of wetland enhancement, buffer enhancement, and designation of additional forested buffer is proposed. A utility easement is planned south of the proposed Lots 31 and 33. This will result in 333 square feet of Wetland A/B buffer reductions. An additional 690 square feet will be established east of the recreation tract to compensate for the buffer reduction. This complies with buffer averaging allowed in previous KCC 21A.24.320.B. Since this project is vested under previous King County Code, the applicant will follow the mitigation replacement ratios established in the former KCC 2 IA.24.340 and 2 IA.24.380. Ratios defined in that code require a I: I mitigation ratio for all temporary and permanent impact to buffers and a 2: I mitigation ratio for impacts to Class 2 wetlands. Section 2 IA.24.340(E) states: All alterations ef wetland shall be replaced or enhanced on the site or within the same drainage basin using the following formulas: class 1 or 2 wetlands on a two-to-one basis and class 3 wetlands on a one-to-one basis with equivalent or greater biologu:.fanctions including, but not limited to, habitat.fanctions and with equivalent hydrologic.fanctions including, but not limited to, storage capacity. No physical, direct impacts to wetlands are proposed for this project and therefore the functions and values provided by Wetland C will remain the same post-development. The wetland and buffer mitigation proposed below is designed to provide protection for the resources in the project area as well as compensate for the impacts to the wetland buffers as well as the "paper fill" area of Wetland C. The proposed mitigation plan exceeds the minimum mitigation ratios required by the version of KCC this project is vested under. The proposed mitigation will allow the site to provide equivalent or increased hydrologic and habitat functions. (See Functions and Values section of this report for a detailed discussion). Since the proposed mitigation plan provides greater mitigation area than the required ratios and equivalent functions post-development, the proposed plan complies with Section 21A.24.340(E) of previous KCC. Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horwn -Liberty Gardens WRI#13122 8 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 &vision #2: April 2014 Tbl2P' I a e ro1ect moacts an dP rooose dM'. 1t1e:at1on Impact Area of Impact Mitigation Required KCC Mitigation: (square feet) Measure Mitigation: Impact Ratio Imnact Ratio Provided Permanent Buffer 4,791 SF 8,637 SF 1: 1 1.8: 1 Impact Additional buffer (Wetland C) "Paper Fill" -4,500 SF 5,860 SF Wetland 2: 1 2.17: I Wetland-As-Buffer Enhancement (Wetland C) 2,545 SF Buffer Enhancement 1,377 SF Additional Buffer Buffer Reduction 333 SF 690 SF Buffer I: 1 2.07: l (Wetland A/B) Addition Temporary Buffer 1,685 SF l ,685 SF Buffer 1: 1 1:1 Impact Restoration (Wetland A/B) WETLAND ENHANCEMENT To provide additional protection for Wetland C, the applicant is proposing to enhance 960 square feet of existing wetland. This wetland enhancement planting will assist in safeguarding Wetland C and improve the functions and values this portion of the wetland currently provides. Wetland enhancement of Wetland C will take place within the ROW and include removing all trash and debris present as well as planting the native species listed below. Wetland Enhancement Planting -Wetland C (960 square feet) Cottllllon Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quanti!)>: Red osier dogwood Comus sericea I gal 5' 5 Black twin berry Lonicera involucrata 1 gal 5' 5 Pacific willow Salix lucida whip 3' 20 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis whip 3' 20 Slough sedge Caro: obnupta spng 18" 100 As compensation for the area of Wetland C that will be functioning as buffer (paper fill), the applicant is proposing to provide additional habitat features and increase the complexity of vegetation structure in Wetland A/B. This will be achieved by undcrstory planting in the wetland and installing bird boxes. The proposed plantings will be installed within existing vegetation, concentrating on filling in sparse areas or footpaths within the wetland. Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -Liberty Gardens WRl#l3122 9 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Wetland Enhancenumt Planting-Wetland A/B (4,900 square feet) Conunon Naine Western red cedar Lady fern Grass Seeding LatinNaine 1huja plicata Athyrium felix-:femina Size 2 gallon 1 gal Spacing 20' 5' Quantity 13 25 Any disturbed soil in the wetland enhancement area shall be seeded to the recommended grass seed mixture below, or similar approved mixture. Fertilizer shall only be used if absolutely necessary due to potential runoff into adjacent waters. If deemed absolutely necessary by the consulting biologist and/ or the City biologist an appropriate fertilizer will be recommended for the particular situation. Wetland Seed Mix Conunon Naine Fowl meadowgrass Meadow foxtail LatinNaine Poa palustris Alopecurus pratensis lbs/1,000 s.f. 0.8 0.8 BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION In order to provide buffer protection for Wetland C, a total of 2,545 square feet of buffer immediately adjacent to 162nd Ave SE will be enhanced. Dense vegetation between the road and the wetland will reduce the amount of light and noise that reaches the wetland and therefore lessen the impact to Wetland C. Installation of the stormwater outfall will result in 1,685 square feet of temporary Wetland A/B buffer impacts. Re-vegetating the area disturbed post-construction will restore temporary buffer impacts. Buffer enhancement and restoration will consist of removing any trash and debris, controlling invasive species, and planting the following native trees and shrubs. Buffer Enhancenumt Plantings (2,545 square feet) CoDlnlon Name Latin Name Size SJ!acing Quanti!l': Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 gallon 10' 12 Western Red Cedar Th,efa plicata 2 gallon 10' 6 Big leaf maple Acer macroplryllum 1 gallon 10' 5 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 gallon 8' 6 Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis 1 gallon 8' 5 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 gallon 8' 5 Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 1 gallon 8' 5 Buffer Restoration Plantings for Temporary Impact (I, 685 square feet) CoDlnlon Name Sitka willow Red osier dogwood Salmonberry Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -liberty Gardens WR/#13122 Latin Name Salix sitchensis Comus sericea Rubus spectabilis Size whip whip 1 gallon JO SJ!acing 3' 3' 5' Quanti!l': 20 20 JO Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Osoberry Snowberry Grass Seeding Oemleria cerasiformis Symphoricarpos a/bus I gallon I gallon 5' 5' 10 10 Any disturbed soil in the buffer shall be seeded to the recommended grass seed mixtures below, or similar approved mixtures. Any change in species or concentration shall be approved by a City representative. Fertilizer shall only be used if absolutely necessary due to potential runoff into adjacent waters. If deemed absolutely necessary by the consulting biologist and/ or the City representative, an appropriate fertilizer will be recommended for the particular situation. Buffer Seed Mix CoDlID.on N anie Tall fescue Colonial bentgrass Annual ryegrass Latin Name Festuca arundinacea Agrostis tenuis UJ[iu:m multiflorurn PROJECT NOTES Pre-Construction Meeting lbs/1,000 s.f. 0.4 0.4 0.5 There will be a pre-construction meeting on this site between: the applicant, the consulting biological professional, landscaper(s), and a City of Renton representative. The objective will be to verify the location of the mitigation areas and to discuss project sequencing. Inspections A biological consultant shall be contracted to periodically inspect the mitigation measures described in this plan. Minor adjustments to the original designs may be necessary prior to and during construction due to unusual or hidden site conditions. A City of Renton representative and/ or the consulting biologist will make these decisions during construction. Construction Timing and Sequencing All mitigation plantings shall take place in early spring or late fall. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL {TESC) Orange barrier fencing shall be placed around mitigation areas prior to construction. All sedimentation control facilities shall be kept in place and functioning until ground vegetation is firmly established and the project is complete. Prior to removal of TESC facilities, an inspection shall be required to be conducted by the city of Renton to verify that all accumulated sediment and debris that have been contained by TESC facilities have been removed, and the site stabilized. All upland areas of disturbance shall be seeded to a minimum of 100 pounds per acre of grass seed mix and all wetland areas of disturbance shall be seeded to a minimum of 96 pounds per acre of grass seed mix upon completion of grading and planting. Seed mixes are specified in this plan. Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -liberty Gardens WRl#l3122 11 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 PLANTING NOTES Planting shall occur in the early spring or late fall and all plant material will be ordered from a reputable nursery. Care and handling of all plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project. The origin of all plant materials specified in this plan shall be native plants, nursery grown in the Puget Sound region of Washington. Pre-dug plants may only be used upon approval by the City of Renton. Some limited species substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist, and/or the City of Renton. Larger plant stock may be used without consultation. Substitutions with smaller plant stock than specified may require consultation. Handling Plants shall be handled so as to avoid all damage, including breaking, bruising, root damage, sunburn, drying, freezing, or other injury. Plants must be covered during transport. Plants shall not be bound with wire or rope in a manner that could damage branches. Protect plant roots with shade and wet soil in the time period between delivery and installation. Do not lift container stock by trunks, stems, or tops. Do not remove from containers until ready to plant. Water all plants as necessary to keep moisture levels appropriate to the species horticultural requirements. Plants shall not be allowed to dry out and will be watered as necessary while in containers. All plants shall be watered thoroughly immediately upon installation. Bare root plants are subject to the following special requirements, and shall not be used unless planted between November I and March 1, and only with the permission of the Landscape Designer and the City of Renton. Bare root plants must have enough fibrous root to ensure plant survival. Roots must be covered at all times with mud and/ or wet straw, moss, or other suitable packing material until time of installation. Plants whose roots have dried out from exposure will not be accepted at installation inspection. Storage Plants stored by the Permittee for longer than one month prior to planting shall be planted in nursery rows, and treated in a manner suitable to that species' horticultural requirements. Plants must be re- inspected by the Wetland Biologist and / or Landscape Designer prior to installation. Damaged Plants Damaged, dried out, or otherwise mishandled plants will be rejected at installation inspection. All rejected plants shall be immediately removed from the site. Plant Names Plant names shall comply with those generally accepted in the native plant nursery trade. Any question regarding plant species or variety shall be referred to the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist or the City of Renton. All plant materials shall be true to species and variety and legibly tagged. Quality and Condition Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth, healthy, well-branched, vigorous, with well-developed root systems, and free of pests and diseases. Damaged, diseased, pest-infested, scraped, bruised, dried out, burned, broken, or defective plants will be rejected. Plants with pruning wounds over I" in diameter will be rejected. Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -Liberry Gardens WR!# 13122 12 Wet/,and Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Roots All plants shall be balled and burlapped or containerized, unless explicitly authorized by the Landscape Designer and / or Wetland Biologist. Rootbound plants or B&B plants with damaged, cracked or loose rootballs (major damage) will be rejected. Immediately before installation, plants' with minor root damage (some broken and / or twisted roots) must be root-pruned. Matted or circling roots of containerized plantings must be pruned or straightened and the sides of the root ball must be roughened from top to bottom to a depth of approximately half an inch in two to four places. Bare root planting of woody material is allowed only with permission from the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist and / or the City of Renton. Sizes Plant sizes shall be the size indicated in the plant schedule in approved plans. Larger stock may be acceptable provided that it has not been cut back to size specified, and that the root ball is proportionate to the size of the plant. Smaller stock may be acceptable, and under some circumstances preferable, based on site-specific conditions. Measurements, caliper, branching and balling and burlapping shall conform to the American Standard of Nursery Stock by the American Association of Nurserymen ~atest edition). Form Evergreen trees, if used, shall have single trunks and symmetrical, well-developed form. Deciduous trees shall be single-trunked unless specified as multi-stem in the plan schedule. Shrubs shall have multiple stems and be well branched. Tuning of Planting To the greatest extent possible, all planting shall occur between November I and March 1. Overall, the earlier plants go into the ground during the dormant period, the more time they have to adapt to the site and extend their root systems before the water demands of spring and summer. Weeding Existing and exotic vegetation in the mitigation and buffer areas will be hand weeded from around all newly installed plants at the time of installation and on a routine basis throughout the monitoring period. No chemical control of vegetation on any portion of the site is allowed without the written permission of the City of Renton. Site Conditions The contractor shall immediately notify the Landscape Designer and / or Wetland Biologist of drainage or soil conditions likely to be detrimental to the growth or survival of plants. Planting operations shall not be conducted under the following conditions: freezing weather, when the ground is frozen, excessively wet weather, excessively windy weather, or in excessive heat. Planting Pits Planting pits shall be circular or square with vertical sides, and shall be 6" deeper and 12" larger in diameter than the root ball of the plant. Break up the sides of the pit in compacted soils. Set plants upright in pits, as illustrated in planting detail. Burlap shall be removed from the planting pit. Backfill shall be worked back into holes such that air pockets are removed without adversely compacting down soils. Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -liberry Gardens WR/#13122 13 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Fertilizer Slow-release fertilizer may be used if pre-approved by the City of Renton. Fertilizers shall be applied only at the base of plantings underneath the required covering of mulch (that does not make contact with stems of the plants). No soil amendment or fertilizers will be placed in planting holes. Water Irrigation / Watering: Water shall be provided during the dry season (July I through October 15) for the first two years after installation to ensure plant survival and establishment. A temporary above ground irrigation system and/ or water truck should provide water. Water should be applied at a rate of 1 inch of water twice per week for year I and I inch per week during year 2. Staking Most shrubs and many trees DO NOT require any staking. If the plant can stand alone without staking in a moderate wind, do not use a stake. If the plant needs support, then strapping or webbing should be used as low as possible on the trunk to loosely brace the tree with two stakes (see Planting Detail). Do not brace the tree tightly or too high on the trunk. If the tree is unable to sway, it will further lose the ability to support itself. Do not use wire in a rubber hose for strapping as it exerts too much pressure on the bark. As soon as supporting the plant becomes unnecessary, remove the stakes. All stakes must be removed within two (2) years of installation. Plant Location Lath stakes (measuring 3'x2"xl/ 4") or suitable flagging material shall be placed next to or on each planting to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-native vegetation and to assist in locating the plants during the monitoring period. Arrangement and Spacing The plants shall be arranged in a pattern with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution that are required in accordance with the approved plans. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Spacing of the plantings may be adjusted to maintain existing vegetation with the agreement of the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist, and/ or the City of Renton. Inspection(s) A biological professional shall be present on site to inspect the plants prior to planting. Minor adjustments to the original design may be required prior to and during construction. Mulch All landscaped areas denuded of vegetation and soil surface surrounding all planting pit areas shall receive no less than two to four inches of organic compost or certified weed-free straw after planting. Compost or certified weed-free straw shall be kept well away (at least two inches) from the trunks and stems of woody plants. Arborists wood chips are a preferred material. Critical Area Stu4Y Addendum DR Horton -liberty Gardens WRI# 13122 14 Wetland &sources, Inc. November 2013 Revisum #2: April 2014 CONTINGENCY PLAN Should any monitoring report reveal the mitigation has failed in whole or in part, and should that failure be beyond the scope of routine maintenance, the applicant must submit a Contingency Plan. This plan may range in complexity from a list of plants substituted, to cross-sections of proposed engineered structures. Once approved, it may be installed, and will replace the approved mitigation plan. If the failure is substantial, the City of Renton will likely extend the monitoring period for that mitigation. MAINTENANCE The mitigation areas will require periodic maintenance to replace vegetation mortality as necessary. Maintenance shall be required in accordance with King County Sensitive Areas Restoration Guidelines (2002) and approved plans. y[aintcnance may include, but not be limited to, removal of competing grasses (by hand if necessary), irrigation, fertilization (if necessary), replacement of plant mortality, and the replacement of mulch for each maintenance period. Chemical control, only if approved by the City of Renton, shall be applied by a licensed applicator following all label instructions. Duration and Extent: In order to achieve performance standards, the Permittee shall have the mitigation area maintained for the duration of the monitoring period (five years). Maintenance will include watering, weeding around the base of installed plants, pruning, replacement, re-staking, removal of all classes of noxious weeds (see vVashington State Noxious Weeds List, WAC 16-750-005) and Himalayan blackberry, and any other measures needed to ensure plant survival. The Landscape Designer and/ or Wetland Biologist shall direct all maintenance. Survival: The Permittee shall be responsible for the health of 80% of all newly installed plants for one growing season after installation has been accepted by the City of Renton (see Performance Standards). A growing season for these purposes is defined as occurring from spring to spring (March 15 to March 15, of the following year). For fall installation (often required), the growing season will begin the following spring. The Permittee shall replace any plants that are failing, weak, defective in manner of growth, or dead during this growing season, as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist, and/or the City of Renton. Installation Timing for Replacement Plants: Replacement plants shall be installed between September 15 and January 15, unless otherv,ise determined by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist, and/ or the City of Renton. Standards for Replacement Plants: Replacement plants shall meet the same standards for size and type as those specified for the original installation, unless otherwise directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist, and/or the City of Renton. Replanting: Plants that have settled in their planting pits too deep, too shallow, loose, or crooked shall be replanted as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Biologist, and/or the City of Renton. Critical Area Stut!J Addendum DR Horton -Liberty Gardens WR/#13122 15 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Herbicides / Pesticides: Chemical controls shall not be used in the mitigation/restoration area, sensitive areas, or their buffers. However, limited use of herbicides may be approved depending on site-specific conditions, only if approved by the City of Renton. Weeding: Trees and shrubs must be weeded to the dripline, and mulch maintained at 3" depth. Weed herbaceous plantings as necessary. Removal: All litter, dumping, and non-native vegetation (e.g., Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen blackberry, Scotch broom, English ivy, morning glory,Japanese knotweed, etc.) must be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Structures: Damaged or missing fences, posts, signs, habitat or hydrology structures must be repaired or replaced. Receipts must be sent to the City of Renton. General: The Permittee shall include in general maintenance act!VIUes the replacement of any vandalized or damaged signs, habitat features, fences, or other structural components of this mitigation site. PROJECT MONITORING Requirements for monitoring project: 1. Initial compliance report 2. Yearly site inspection (once per year in the fall) for five years 3. Annual reports including final report (one report submitted in the fall of each monitored year) Purpose for Monitoring: The purpose for monitoring this mitigation project shall be to evaluate its success. Success will be determined if monitoring shows that at the end of five years, the definitions of success stated below are being met. The property owner shall grant access to the mitigation area for inspection and maintenance to the contracted landscape or wetland specialist and the City of Renton during the period of the bond or until the project is evaluated as successful. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be conducted annually for five years in accordance with the approved Restoration Monitoring Plan. Vegetation Monitoring: Sampling points or transects will be established for vegetation monitoring, and photo points established from which photos will be taken throughout the monitoring period. Permanent transect location(s) must be identified on the mitigation site plans in the first monitoring report (they may be drawn on approved mitigation plans by hand). Each transect shall detail herbaceous, shrub, and tree coverage in accordance with the King County Sensitive Areas Restoration Guidelines (2002). Monitoring of vegetation transects shall occur annually between May 15 and September 30 (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. Photo points: No less than four permanent photo points within the mitigation areas will be established. Photographs will be taken from these points to visually record condition of the restoration area. Photos shall be taken annually between May 15 and September 30 (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. Critu:al Area Study Addendum DR Horum -Liherry Gardens WR/#13122 16 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 R,vision #2: April 2014 Report Contents: As applicable, monitoring reports must include descriptions / data for: a. Site plan and location map b. Historic description of project, including date of installation, current year of monitoring, restatement of mitigation / restoration goals, and performance standards c. Plant survival, vigor, and areal coverage for every plant community (transect data), and explanation of monitoring methodology in the context of assessing performance standards d. Slope condition, site stability, any structures or special features e. Buffer conditions, e.g., surrounding land use, use by humans, and/ or wild and domestic creatures f. Observed wildlife, including amphibian, avian, and others g. Assessment of nuisance / exotic biota and recommendations for management h. Soils, including texture, Munsell color, rooting, and oxidized rhizospheres 1. Color photographs (4"x6" in size) taken from permanent photo-points as shown on Monitoring Plan PROJECT SUCCESS AND COMPLIANCE Criteria for Success: Upon completion of the proposed mitigation project, an inspection by a wetland professional will be made to determine plan compliance. A compliance report will be supplied to the City of Renton within 30 days after the completion of planting. A landscape professional or biological scientist will do condition monitoring of the plantings. For the first year monitoring reports will be submitted quarterly. For years 2 through 5, monitoring reports will be submitted annually. Final inspection will occur five years after completion of this project. The contracted consultant will prepare a report as to the success of the project. Mitigation Goals: Goal 1: Provide protection of the functions and values of Wetland C through wetland and buffer enhancement. • Enhance 960 SF of Wetland C closest to the improvements/ extension of 162nd Ave SE. • Enhance 2,545 square feet ofWetland C buffer immediately adjacent to 162nd Ave SE. Goal 2: Provide additional protection to critical areas through designating additional buffer area. • Provide 9,637 square feet of additional forested buffer adjacent to Wetland A/B buffer. Definition of Success: The mitigation areas shall meet the following performance standards: a) Year 1: 80 percent survival of newly planted species, b) Year 3: at least 80 percent survival of installed plant species, c) Year 5: at least 80 percent survival of installed plant species This mitigation plan shall support at least 80% of the native plants set forth in the approved mitigation plan by the end of five years. The species mix should resemble that proposed in the planting plans, but strict adherence to obtaining all of the species shall not be a criterion for success. Critical Ana Study Addendum DR Horton -Liherty Gardens WR/#13122 17 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 2013 Revision #2: April 2014 Performance Standards Performance Standard 1: There shall be 100 percent survival of all the plantings in Year 1. At least 80 percent of the plant material installed shall survive in Year 5 after installation. Performance Standard 2: There shall be a minimum of 15 percent cover of woody species (shrub and tree canopy layers considered together) in the buffer after the first year post-installation; and a minimum of 45 percent cover by woody material after the third year post-installation; and a minimum of80 percent cover by woody material after the fifth year post-installation. Performance Standard 3: There shall be less than 15 percent cover of weedy /invasive cover in the mitigation areas for all five years post-installation. USE OF Tms REPORT This Addendum to the Critical Areas Analysis Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan is supplied to DR Horton as a means of describing jurisdictional wetland conditions, as required by the City of Renton during the permitting process. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland &sources, Inc. 1i~A-~ Meryl Kamowski Associate Ecol.ogist Critical Area Study Addendum DR Horton -Liberry Gardens WRI# 13122 18 Wetland Resources, Inc. November 20 l 3 Revision #2: April 2014 WETLAND WETLAND ENHANCEMENT ~ ~ BUFFER ADDITION/ CREATION m BUFFER ENHANCEMENT ~ PAPERFILL (WETLAND-AS-BUFFER) -BUFFER REDUCTION/ IMPACT IIIIIIIIl TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT STREAM ---STANDARD BUFFER BUFFER POST ---MITIGATION • NGPASIGN X SPILT-RAIL FENCE WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN DR HORTON-LIBERTY GARDENS PORTION OF SECTION 06, TOWNSHIP 22N, RANGE 05E, W.M. BEGINNING OF PROPOSED 162ND AVE. SE IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND C CATEGORY 2 APPROX. 7,000 SF (FORESTED, PF01C) WETLAND ENHANCEMEN"f 960 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 2,545 SF BUFFER AVERAGING • I I l'il1 REDUCTION 333 SF BUFFER ADDITION 9,637 SF 4 TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT TO BE RESTORED 1,685SF BUFFER ADDITION 377SF "' " " SCALE: 1" ~ 0 200 200' I I 400 I I'. i ',l ·1 .... ~ ::E b ~ g ~<0:,.:f:O<» ll: <:! [[I ... ('.j . m;:z.-~g Q w ~ ~,;..: .. ~!;;:~5~i lj ! ~ i'l i ., )I ·~ .t .. •: .. ;i ,,,j:i !~ ~~ ., ~ m tr :E~ :g ~5'§~0~ Ot...J...JN<C wo.E:!E~3 ~:cq2w-c frj ~ C ~ z ~ a:: t::o -a.. <( ,:-1 -t z 0 ~ (!j E :a: ~ ~ ., en z UJ Oz ~~ (!j (!j ~ 0:: 0:: UJ C -I±: u.. .J. ::>z!::!::!3: CD <! _, oC: 'Z Z 2 o <( ~ l-o 0:: z z O UJ :5 :,: 0:: >-0:: UJ Cl :,: SHEET 2 G WETLAND ~ WETLAND ~ ENHANCEMENT ~ BUFFER ADDITION/ ~ CREAnON - BUFFER ENHANCEMENT ~ PAPERFILL ~ (WETLAND·AS·BUFFERI - SUFFER REDUCTION/ IMPACT 1111 TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT STREAM ------STANDARD BUFFER BUFFEFI. POST MITIGATION • X NGPASIGN $PllT·AAIL FENCE i EXISTING 16:.!ND AVE SE I IIMPRO\IEO) -------, BEGINNING OF PROPOSED 162ND AVf.'. SE IMPROVEMENTS I =,=cc \ I CATEGOFI.V2 . APPROX 7,000 SF~::;,.· (FORESTED. PF01CI ~ -~ ·-:;~ AREA OF PAPER FILL (WET~R~~si.~:r---------:1~ WETLAND ENrlA~CEMENT 960 SF SUFFER / ENHAACEMENT_/ 2,5-15SF BUFFER AVERAGING REDUCTION 333SF CLA.99 4 STREAM WETLANCIA/B CATEGORY~ APPROX. 7,500 Sf (FORESTED, Pf01C) BUFFER ADDITION 9,63? SF WETLAND AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN DR HORTON-LIBERTY GARDENS PORTION OF SECTION 06, TOWNSHIP 22N, RANGE OSE, W.M. PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACT U91 SF 2 i ' 4 5 'I i1~1 TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT TO BE RESTORED 1,68~ SF 6 7 ' ,n 11, ~~' 28 27 BUFFER -AOCIITION l1TSF 8 'Ii • 22 " 24 r---- 10 ' 'l, ,1 'i .1, " 13 i III I 14 15 18 ~ SCAI.E: 1" • 50' -lo.......ai 0 50 100 19 VICINITY MAP •::::::.:.~ ... , ,, I 20 '--;::::· •:,_.. ·~·'·.·.·EJ; ,.:·., ( ,e":;>;:-:, •=" ·. :. "' .. -' '~; " ' 1 ~ ~ ~ $l ~ ~ ~ i;; ·' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ A G1 11 ;J !1: r ,~ ~-'ij -- !! '2't c:: ,' ~ il ~~~~i i§:11 § "' f2 z :'i "' a. la zo 0"' ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ " "' w ' "-' z Li. z f2 ~ ~ 15 o ac• zO ., ,: 0"' zo :'i i M1 .OS•.I 3111'::lS '~''"""""')fN '..'s!l NM'l'HO tf "'"'"~"" .,,,..,.,., '"""'"""',,..''"" 6'cL'I,';; VM '"'°"'""ll 0.:-l!t JN ""I\!"* 1 waio1 016(1; u11cn 1 •I'll uu, UOUOH ~G ~GJ G]~VdJ~d NOID 'NOlN3l:I SN30HV8 A -NOH:lOH l:JG HO:! NVld NOll'v~lllr-l H3:l:Jn8 GN'v ONV113M 1lrl 1 1! ; i' I.I 1·1• 1 11 ·1· ! ~. I, • I tl II h 1 1, II g ! Ii lf! hi ( Denis Law Mayor December 24, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator DR Horton 12910 Totem Lake Blvd. NE, Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 SUBJECT: Changes to Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan Liberty Gardens Plat, File No. LUAOB-093 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for submitting the wetland/stream mitigation plan and monitoring proposal for the Liberty Gardens Plat. We have reviewed plan dated November 5, 2013 prepared by your wetlands consultant Wetland Resources. This letter is sent to advise you of the changes needed to obtain approval of your final wetland mitigation plan. Changes needed to Wetland Mitigation/Monitoring Plan: 1. The proposed mitigation report shall be submitted on 8.S"xll" paper with accompanying large plan sheets. The plan sheets should not include any of the report text. Please remember that these plans sheets will be microfiched, and at their current size it is difficult to do so clearly. The report should include the following: • Baseline Information: A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted wetland including: existing wetland acreage; vegetative, fauna I and hydrologic characteristics; an identification of direct and indirect impacts of the project to the wetland area and wetland functions; soil and substrata conditions; topographic elevations and compensation site. If the mitigation site is different from the impacted wetland site, the assessment should include at a minimum: existing acreage; vegetative, fauna I and hydrologic conditions; relationship within the watershed and to existing water bodies; soil and substrata conditions; topographic elevations; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; buffers; and ownership. Environmental Goals and Objectives: A written report by a qualified wetland specialist shall be provided identifying goals and objectives of the mitigation plan and describing: • The purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of target evaluation species and resource functions; dates for beginning and completion; and a complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original wetland or, if out-of-kind, the type of wetland to be emulated; and • A review of the best available science and report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of wetland proposed shall be Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov provided. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the original wetland shall be provided based on the experiences of comparable projects, preferably those in the same drainage basins, if any. An analysis of the likelihood of persistence of the created or restored wetland shall be provided based on such factors as surface and ground water supply and flow patterns; dynamics of the wetland ecosystem; sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion, periodic flooding and drought, etc.; presence of invasive flora or fauna; potential human or animal disturbance; and previous comparable projects, if any. • Performance Standards: Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are achieved and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. These criteria will be evaluated and reported pursuant to subsection (e) of this definition, Monitoring Program. An assessment of the project's success in achieving the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan should be included along with an evaluation of the need for remedial action or contingency measures. 2. Narrative describing how proposed impacts and/or mitigation overlaps and replaces mitigation installed per the approved mitigation plan for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat (LUAOB-097). 3. A description shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the progress of the compensation project. A monitoring report shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and annually thereafter, and at a minimum, should document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years. 4. Please include a statement of qualifications for all parties who will be responsible for maintenance and monitoring of the wetland mitigation project. S. Plan sheets need to identify the size, category and class of each wetland and a clear legend. The legend should include the signs, fence, utility lines, etc. Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: Once the mitigation project has been installed, please provide me with the wetland consultant's written confirmation of installation pursuant to the final approved mitigation plan. The date the City receives this written confirmation will constitute the beginning of the minimum 5-year _maintenance and monitoring period. As Built Plans for the Mitigation Area: A copy of the as-built plans of the approved mitigation plan, prior to recording; unless an installation surety device is provided or if plantings are installed as exactly per plan. • Monitoring and Maintenance Surety Amount: In order to provide you with the amount of security necessary for the maintenance and monitoring of the wetland mitigation plantings, signage, and fencing, we will need a copy of the signed maintenance and monitoring contract for this work. A draft (followed by a final) maintenance and monitoring contract (or contracts) for our review prior to execution of the contract shall be provided. The draft contract language must ensure compliance with both the performance standards of the Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., mitigation plan as well the maintenance and monitoring standards of the Renton Municipal Code. The scope of the contract must clearly cover the cost of plant maintenance and replacement as well. The language in the contract must also guarantee that "structures. improvements. and mitigation perform satisfactorily for a period of 5 years" (e.g. add provisions for plant replacement and weed removal referencing compliance with the survival rates noted in the final approved wetland mitigation plan. The contract must include quarterly monitoring reports for the first year and annual reports thereafter. The draft contract must be followed up with a final signed contract once the City approves the draft version. Once the City approves the contract proposal, the applicant will need to provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee satisfactory performance for a minimum of five years. Wetland Information Needed on Final Plat Map: All critical areas and their buffers be placed in either a Native Growth Protection Tract or Native Growth Protection Easement. Feel free to contact me at 425-430-7219 with any questions. Sincerely, Senior Planner cc: Wetland Resources, Biologist File No. LUA08--093 May 10, 2010 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Plat Alteration Liberty Gardens (LUA 08-093, PP, ECF) Dear Mr. Examiner: CITY OF RENTON .. ,,f"" -~- MAY 1 0 201~ RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I request that my plat of Liberly Gardens be placed in a state of abeyance for a period of no less then three months from the date of this letter to allow me time to submit a Plat Alteration to the City of Renton for the subject property. I feel it would be unproductive to request the City Council approve a preliminary plat that will be altered in the near future. I appreciate your continued support of this project. Dave Petrie Owner/Developer Liberty Gardens Plat CC: Anne Nielson, Assistant City Attorney Terri Briere, City Council Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk ,/" \' CITY OF RENTON MAR 2, 3 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROPOSAL TO END FLOODING IN THE 162"d.154th AVENUE CORRIDOR; AND JOINT-USE PARKING LOT Affecting Liberty Gardens and Cava/la Plats Prepared by David Petrie 23 March 2010 Denis Law, Mayor, City of Renton 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 23 March 2010 RE: Proposal to End Flooding in the 162"d·1641" Avenue Corridor; and Joint Use Parking Lot Dear Mr. Law: The subject plats-adjacent within the subject corridor-Liberty Gardens (LUA-08-093, PP, ECF) and Cava/la (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF) may soon be before the Council for approval/modification. Examiner Kaufman's recommendation for approval of Liberty Gardens (11-months out-of-date, subject to major revision) was dated April 28, 2009; Cava/la has been through Reconsideration (March 1 ). Recommendation for approval of Cava/la was dated November 3, 2010. A Reconsideration Hearing for Cava/la was held February 9, based on Failure to Notify neighbors, and use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) to increase density, the latter non-compliant with the Renton R-4 Zoning Code. Both plats are seriousll flawed for two interrelated reasons: 1) Changing the southerly Secondary Access from 162"d Ave to 1641 Avenue, the former developed under KC DDES, without addressing flooding; and 2) Impractical accommodation of the parking lot needs of the adjacent Liberty HS sports fields. By this letter, I am recommending a 30-day study be conducted by the Public Works Department, in support of the Planning Group. Gregg Zimmerman is familiar with the severe flooding created by the illegal diversion (19751 by Naber, 100% of the storm-water from the 16016 Ave ROW now conveyed to the 162"0 Ave ROW, adding undue costs to perfect the ideal location (162"0 Ave) of Southern access to the corridor. The funds would be better spent fixing the problem at its source. Prior to the Liberty Annexation (August 11, 2008), which included the aforementioned plats, I have spent over $100K over ten years while under King County's DDES, employing three engineers, three wetlands consultants, and a hydraulic specialist to determine the drainage requirements and best location of Secondary access to the two subject plats. Subsequent to the Liberty Annexation, Planning Services yielded to the wishes of Patti Gammell, who didn't want the new road (162"d Avenue) proposed by DDES, passing before her kitchen window. This is discussed in detail in Attachment A. The needs of a parking lot for parents attending Liberty HS sporting events is a separate, but related, issue. This is discussed in detail in Attachment B. As a professional engineer formerly with Boeing, I have spent a great deal of time and effort to help solve the above-mentioned stand-alone problems, but related to the aforementioned plats. I have over 300- pictures and relevant data collected over this time to aid in achieving a solution to the drainage and parking lot issues. We came very close to a satisfactory solution to the Secondary Access problem under DDES, described in Attachment A. I hereby offer my services to aid in resolving these issues. Attachments A and B contain solutions to both problems, resulting in an end to the flooding problem that has plagued residents along the current drainage flow path for 30 years, and answering the parking lot needs of Liberty HS. The Good News is that Renton now has control of solutions to both problems. David Petrie-Owner/Developer of Liberty Gardens 811 So. 273rd Ct. Des Moines WA 98198 253-946-6619 Attachment A-162"d Avenue Secondary Access CC: Terri Briere (City Council-4) Attachment B-Joint Use Parking Lot for Myrtlewood Heights Park and Liberty HS I / ATTACHMENT A 162"d Avenue Secondary Access Summary -The flooding problems resulting from the illegal diversion (1975) of all storm water along 1601h Avenue at 140th Street, to the 162"d Avenue ROW can be eliminated by completing a section of the culvert system along 1601h Avenue. (Exhibit 4) Since the Liberty Annexation (August 11, 2008), Renton now has full authority to correct this problem. The preferred Secondary Access to the plats now proposed within the 162"d to 1641h Ave corridor is simplified by utilizing the presently inert culvert system. During the preliminary plat studies under (DOES, 2000-2008) of the Liberty Gardens Plat, KC and Renton required extension of 162"d Ave (recorded on plans dated 1908) as the secondary access. DOES (improperly) classified the storm-water-emanating from the ditches along 160th Ave within the ROW-as a Sensitive Area (SA) Stream. In 2004, a local neighbor (Gragg) told Petrie that the flooding they have experienced for over 20 years started shortly after the storm water from 1601" Ave was diverted by Leroy Neighbor (1975), as a means to end flooding his lawn during rainstorms. I visited Nabers widow (Henrietta): She remembered her husband digging a trench (Exhibit 1) across the street fronting their property, using a backhoe from his septic tank business. Henrietta had no idea of the damage wrought downstream by this diversion, and that it was illegal/unauthorized. In 1979, KC responded to a complaint by a homeowner, 3,200 feet to the southeast of the Naber diversion, that his swimmin~ pool was flooded by muddy water. KC responded by digging a temporary pond (Exhibit 2) in the 162" Ave ROW. KC Records (starting1984) show several complaints by Gragg and Chinn of flooding of septic tank fields, driveways, and garage. Upon hearing of the forthcoming Liberty Annexation, Gragg and Chinn pleaded to the Renton City Council (January 28, 2008) to complete the culvert system along 1601h Ave, so that the diverted storm water would then be contained within the completed culvert system along 160th Avenue. On March 4, 2008, Gragg joyously informed Petrie that KC Drainage had plans In the Works to complete the culvert system, thus ending the flooding. The Liberty Annexation of all parts of the involved area was included, this transferring responsibility to Renton. During preliminary plat work with Bottheim (DOES), KC essentially retracted their earlier classification of the storm-water emanating from 1601h Ave as a Sensitive Area Stream, resulting in a tight-lining of the storm-water: But this would not cure the flooding problems. In Oct 2007, Whittaker (DOES) asked for a study evaluating redirection of the storm-water back to 1601h Ave by completing the unfinished culvert system. Hydrologist McCarthy reported (Letter dated October 9, 2007, attached) generally favoring the idea, but expressed reservation about a culvert stub intended to drain a depressed area 180' North from where 1601h Ave meets 1441h Street. In November 2008, Petrie discovered that the reason for installing (1990) the 12" stub inlet to the catch basin had been subsequently eliminated by grading the backyard area of a nearby house, this eliminating the need for the inlet stub. By simply plugging the stub (Exhibit 6), full capacity of the culvert system would be sufficient to convey all the storm-water originating within the 1601h Ave corridor to stay there, on its way to the 1441h Street culverts, where it thence flows westward. 2 In several phone conversations 2007-8 with Brian Sleight (Water and Land Resources), he supported the claim that the storm-water jumping out of the 1601 " Ave ditch should never have been labeled as a SA Stream; in short, all the fuss about how to handle the storm water was for naught: It is not a bona-fide wetland! Being an engineer, Sleight helped Petrie design a system that would complete the 1601" Ave culvert system (Exhibit 4) with sufficient capacity to end the flooding problem, including the overtopping of ditches and driveways between 162"d and 1601" Avenues along the north side of 1441" Street. Conflicting reports from hydrologist McCarthy can be found in the files, now with Renton. The cost of completing the 1601h Ave culvert system will be -$40K. In 2005, Contractor Joe Breezee gave Petrie an estimate of $175K to construct the 162"d Ave Extension. including costs to cross the swale at the SW corner of Liberty Gardens. Considering the superiority of 162"d Avenue as a collector arterial, this is well worth the increase in costs; especially since the flooding problem is corrected as a by-product. All of the above is relevant to proceeding with Renton Planning to achieve Plat Approvals for the Liberty Gardens and Cava/la Plats. In January 2008, Renton suddenly expressed wishes to switch the Secondary Access from 162nd Ave to 164th Ave. Cava/la engineers (Barghausen) initially resisted the change; eventually acceded to the change. As a means to achieve Petrie's cooperation, they threatened to Go It Alone, if Petrie resisted the change. Petrie assumed that they agreed to the switch, based on lower costs to use 164th Avenue over 162"d_ Petrie then agreed to do the same. Petrie didn't know at the time (mid-January 2009) that he was being tricked: Cava/la switching-sometime during the Summer 2008-to 164th Avenue to achieve Secondary Access to the corridor, this being based on a nod from Planning that they would push for application of TDR's, gaining -$1.3M profits from 11 more lots, in exchange for -$50K worth of trees and amenities. 3 Stonnwater overflows ditch here, heads SE to 162nd Ave ROW Exhibit 1 160th Ave, looking south at 140th Street KC Roads dug (1 979) tempora,yretention pond in 162nd Ave ROW to respond to complaints of swimming pool flooding-resulting from Naber illegal diversion (1975) along 160th Ave ROW-with mud during prolonged rains. During procssing of Liberty Gardens Plat (2003), DOES improperly tagged this a SA Stream. Since this area is endosed by the Liberty Annexation (2008), Renton has authority to correct this, greatly simplifying 162nd Ave Extension planned under ODES. 4 Dual 12" culvert system dry during rainstorms due to lncompleted 900' section north of 142nd Pl. KC had plans to complete, but now within Renton . . Annexation (August 2008) 5 RNldent adjacent north of 190th Avenue -d 144th 8tretlt, pointing at catch basin of inert 12" culvert system; never obsering -y flow , even during lntenH rainstorms. Legend D RID r,,-,:;, //.. Flood Flow Path 0 D Type 2 CB Type 1 CB 12-18" Pipe/Culvert 24" Pipe/Culvert -new culvert-18" // open ditch, overflow i..--from five plats Nabor Diversion (1975)-24" -· \ \ '· I I \ ' '·· '· ., Dra inage problems l at Ching , Gragg , and -_ __. Gam mel properties -15;--"' .s ~ cJ 0 01?>Q,Q, Ga"' "1rne1 1 Dysfunctional inlet needs end [ i plugged for 1000,4 capacity ~-, · ~ann~el to be l -'.; l tig~tlined :;-=-I --J i -- t Cl) .c ·-.J r--c i:;.....----:J...}---;---b--~~C-=-:~1~~: J_, C=-B-::--15_A _ _.1_5-=-· ~--·--=-~SE:...;-r-4~!r_,:...:.2 'ul -fi 1-=:-J _Q,:;~ _.:c;;_s: ___ 18_.:_A_ CB-13 CB-14 CB -15 B-16 i tE:C -RA$ 0'+-00 1 +60 Station Downstream Map Liberty Gard ens . Cav all a, Stormwater 0 200 and Th readg ill Mitigations Ki ng County, Washington ~---~Feet 8+ 10 10+10 'Ed McCarthy, PE. PS 93571715lA~i.eSE Rcl":on Wn r~9SQ59 Poooe (<25) 171-513' F" <<1SJ 171-3432 Exhibit 4 Completion of inert culvert system 6 CB-18 Figure 2 ' ------. --Stub from CB 180' north of 144th Street along west side of 160th Ave Installed (1990) by KC Drainage, no longer necessary since grading for home eliminated depression ~-.. Unnecessary culvert to drain former depression ~"'.l.l....., no longer needed. Should be plugged so 100% culvert capacity is restored from present 40%. 7 • _. CB on west side of 160th Ave ROW, -180' north of 144th Street The bottom lip of this stub to the WSW is 4" above the lip of the main NS section . Because of the soil gradients outside, water will never flow inward as intended; only outward at flow levels 6" above the NS direction. 1320-foot section of DRY culvert system to 144th Street starts here 8 ATTACHMENT B Joint Use Parking Lot for Myrtlewood Heights Park and Liberty HS Summary -The 20-acre Maplewood Heig hts Park, presently undeveloped, can be annexed to Renton at any time . Renton's Community Services (H iga sh iy ama) does not want to annex until funds are available to develop. But KC is not spending anything to ma int ai n this Park, and no taxes are levied. The needs of the adjacent Liberty HS to provide parking for stud e nt's parents and the future Park can best be met by a joint use lot at the northwest corner of Mytrlewood Heigh ts Park. In 2007, Engineers DMP , INC recognized th e v ali d ity of vacating 20 ' of 1641h Avenue half-street under RCW 36.87.040, applied for same. The KC Hea r ing Examiner wanted Renton 's concurrence before approving . But Renton refused , claiming pos si b le use in the futu re . During preliminary plat studies of the Ca va /l a Plat (under DOES , 2006-2008)-adjacent west of the Liberty HS sports fields-no plans were made to accom mod ate the parking needs of Liberty HS sports events . But during continuing studies under Renton Planning , following the Liberty Annex ation (August 11 ), the aforementioned parking lot requirements w ere addressed by e xtend ing 164th Ave with a turn-around within Ca va /la 's northeast corner. The parking sp ac es w ere assumed to be curbside within the1641h Ave ROW. Recognizing the common needs of the future MWH Park and parking for Liberty HS sports events , Petrie asked his engineer (Barghausen) to des ign a joint-use facility (E x hibit 9). The design contains parking capacity with 56-spaces , located 30' from the ball-field bleachers (Exhibit 10). The advantages of such a joint-use parking lot are obvious . And Cava/la regains the -1/2 acre otherwise lost to this inferior method of accommodating parking needs. The Issaquah Sc hool Dis trict should be g lad to share costs-like paying for the required asphalt (-$40k). 9 I f1'1'f«. .. (:Cf:!S E»eT LIBERTY G ARDENS 164th A VE SE ROAD VACATION &~~-....C t.li ll.~IE<:'"o.'6~ll,........«:E)E..WM "..HU C.~ .,.....,..Of (>;" Joint Parking lot for Liberty HS sporting events & Renton's Maplewood Heights Park ( ··-.:.. ·- -:--~------: \ --•• ----'--+------;.__-.c...t......_•_=_· ____ •~----:.-0-. ,,..l .. ""-"""• -""'•""--=--.........:---.....::L------4, .L ~ -~ ~~. • • '() f='_l,!I. II 17 .. 20 2 1 .· .._, 22 Exhibit 9 10 ~ ····· , •. ; _) . ~ -·'' ' ED MCCARTHY, P.E., PS Hydrology• Hydraulics• Enginecrinq October 9, 2007 Mr. Bruce Whittaker King County ODES 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 9957171 Avc1m1e SE Renton, WA 98059 (425) 271•5734 FAX {425) 27l<s432 Re: Addendum to SE 144,. Street -Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis Drainage Improvements along 160'h Avenue SE Dear Mr. Whittaker; This letter serves as an addendum to the hydraulic assessment I prepared for SE 144'h Street (June 15, 2007). In that report I evaluated the basins tributary to the stonnwater conveyance system along SE 144th Street. During the course of that study I became familiar with some of the drainage problems upstream of SE 1441h Street. In particular, residents at the end of SE 142"" Place have experienced increased flooding problems over the past several years. Increases in flood flows have been caused by an unauthorized diversion of drainage that occurred several years ago, as well as by increased runoff from new residential developments in the basin. Property owners along SE 14200 Place currently experience flooding of their backyards, adversely affecting the use of their property and the operation of their onsite sewage disposal systems. Mr. Gragg, owner of one of the properties at the end of SE 14200 Place, has had repeated flooding in his garage and shop. Proposed Solutions to Drainage Problems at SE 14200 Place In my opinion, I believe that the following two drainage improvements should be implemented together with the intent of relieving existing flooding along SE 142" Place: • Extend the stormwater pipe system along 160th Avenue SE and direct flows from the drainage course along SE 142•• Place to the existing 12·inch diameter culvert system along 160th Avenue SE. • Tightline the runoff down that now traverses the north and east property boundaries of adversely affected lots along SE 14200 Place as part of the proposed extension of 162•• A venue SE. Extend Culvert System along 160th Avenue SE Extending the culvert system along 1601h Avenue SE from upgradient of SE 142 00 Place to the bottom of 160th Avenue SE could be effective in relieving some of the flows from the flooding problem at SE 142"" Place. The existing 12·inch diameter pipe system at the bottom of 160th Avenue SE connects to the pipe system along SE 144th Street. This is the ultimate route of for the drainage that causes the flooding along SE 142"" Place. Directing flows down the extended pipe system would bypass a portion of flood flows from the problem area yet would not constitute a diversion of drainage as defined in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Based on conversations with neighbors, directing flows down the right-of- way along 160"' Avenue SE would actually be restoring the historical flow path as it existed prior to \ 1975, when an unauthorized diversion of drainage occurred. f Mr. Bruce Whittaker Page2 October 9, 2007 The 12-inch diameter pipe system along the lower portion of 160"' Avenue SE currently receives little runoff. There is capacity in the system for additional flow. The estimated capacity of the 12-inch diameter pipe would be limited by a flat section of pipe at the top of the hill. The pipe capacity is about 4 cubic feet per second. I estimated a I 00-year flow of 12.3 cubic feet per second to Mr. Gragg's property. By directing a portion of flows down the extended culvert system along 160111 Avenue SE about 30 percent of the flow from the flooding problem along SE 142"" Place could be relieved. Implementing the pipe extension project would be relatively low cost and could be accomplished within the public right-of-way. While there are advantages to extending the pipe system, there are also a few issues of concern. My hydraulic assessment of the storm system along SE 144111 Street identified the intersection of 160"' Avenue SE and SE 144" Street as having a road flooding problem. While my hydraulic model predicted flooding, there is no evidence in the County's records that flooding has in fact occurred in the past. As part of my assessment of SE 144'" Street, I interviewed long-term residents who have never observed flooding as was predicted by the model. On the other hand, drainage improvements were recently installed by King County Roads Division at the intersection, indicating that some drainage problems possibly existed at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE and SE 144'" Street. In any event, drainage that would be diverted from SE 142nd Place ultimately reaches the road flooding problem along SE 144"' Street under its existing flow route. Tightline Runoff to Proposed Extension of 162"" Avenue SE Based on my observations, extending the culvert system along 160"' Avenue SE would not be sufficient in itself to solve the flooding problems for residents along SE 142"" Place. Fortunately, the extension of 162"• Avenue SE from SE 144"' Street to the proposed plat of Liberty Gardens offers a unique opportunity to improve drainage conditions for the neighborhood. In my opinion, drainage should be collected from along the north property boundary of affected properties at SE 142"• Place and tightlined down the storm system that will be constructed with the extension of 162nd Avenue SE. Managing runoff in this manner will eliminate a drainage problem that has been bothersome for several years for at least three residents. If you have any questions regarding my assessment or recommendations, please contact me at (425) 271- 5734. Sincerely, Edward McCarthy, Ph.D. P.E. \. • ' Denis Law Mayor · May 18, 2010 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 -72nd Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, File LUA-08-093, PP, ECF Southeast of 162nd Ave SE and SE 140th Place Dear Mr. Potter: At the regular Council meeting of May 17, 2010, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the hearing examiner to approve the referenced preliminary plat with modifications as outlined in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation dated April 28, 2009 .. Pursuant to RCW, a final plat meeting all requirements of State law and Renton Municipal Code shall be submitted to the .City for approval within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Don Persson Chip Vincent, Planning Director Parties of Record {34) 1055 South Gr~dy Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 43Q-651 O / Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa.gov Department of Community ® & Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator -. . . . . EXHIBIT 2 File Name: H:\CED\GIS_projects\vicinlty_maps\ mxds\parcets _ 145700i45&0150 _liberty_garclen. mxd _ _, __ _ " h Liberty Garden Vicinity Map February 24, 2009 D 150 300 6DO Feet 1:6,00D Steve Botheim, Supervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Kelly Whiting, KC DOT Road Svc Div MS OAK DE 0100 Kris Langley, Traffic Engineer CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Bruce Whittaker DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Larry West, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gregg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 --fl&il/ ·•ii /hr i 109' l!eg,a:laaitlAAJ&I "5!1i6lJII' Kim Claussen PPMIII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Trishah Bull DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Chad Tibbits DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 : ... sjnsde~t I Repiiez B la hachure afin de I reveier le rebord Pop-Up™ J Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS LUSD Shirley Goll, ASI! CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Alex Perlman DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Lisa Dinsmore DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: # 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 I Consultez la feuUl,lNWW·~ry.com · I d'instruction 1-800-~l/m'..AVERY 1 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 I Repliez a la hachure afln de I reveler le rebord Pop-Up"' J ~ AVRW_® 51&~: :! ~AVERY@Sf60 )~ I Consultez la feuill~.a~.Sry.com I d'instructior, 1·800-~AVERY ! Ma'y 17, 2010 Community Services: Fee Waiver Request, 2010 Renton River Days CAG: 08-166, City Hall Third Floor Remodel, Apus Construction Finance: Water Bill Adjustment, Kirk Moore Plat: Liberty Gardens, 162nd Av SE & SE 140th St, ~ 093 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Utility Committee Utility: Water System Upgrades & Purchase, Budget Re-appropriation CAG: 09-090, City 196 Zone Water Reservoir Evaluation, RW Beck Utility: Release of Easement Request, PACLAN D Renton City Council Minutes Page 151 Community Services Department recommended waiver of all fees and charges associated with the 2010 Renton River Days activities as requested by the Renton River Days Board of Directors. Council concur. Community Services Department submitted CAG-08-166, City Hall Third Floor Remodel; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $5,668.80, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $18,303.32 to Apus Construction, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Finance and Information Services Department reported request from Kirk Moore for utility bill adjustment and recommended granting the adjustment in the amount of $2,312.93. Refer to Finance Committee. Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat; 36 lots on 8.95 acres located southeast of 162nd Ave. SE and SE 140th St. Council concur. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Utility Chair Zwicker presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to re-appropriate $67,000 from the Automatic Meter Reading Conversion project (425.455591) to the Water System lnterties Upgrade project (425.455445) for the purpose of construction upgrades to three water system interties, necessary for the purchase of additional water from Seattle Public Utilities to help meet future peak water demand. The Committee further recommended that the transfer of funds be included in the second quarter budget adjustment. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITIEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utility Chair Zwicker presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Addendum No. 2 to Engineering Consultant Agreement CAG-09-090 with R.W. Beck, in the amount of $76,116, to conduct geotechnical investigations on a second site as part of a feasibility study on a potential site for a future City 196 pressure zone water reservoir in the Black River quarry area, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the addendum. The Committee further recommended approval to transfer $20,000 within the 2010 approved budget for Water Utility capital improvement projects to cover the costs of Addendum No. 2 and City staff time for project management. The transfer will be from the Water System Security Improvements project budget (425.455584) to the 196 Pressure Zone Reservoir project budget (425.455570). MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITIEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utility Chair Zwicker presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a partial release of easement as requested by PACLAND (Bonnell Family, LLC) consisting of approximately 4,289 square feet located in the area of743 Rainier Ave. S. (Wal-Mart property) as contained in and described under King County recording number 6111601. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Liberty Gardens PP; LUA-08-093, ECF, PP Exhibits: Hearing Examiner Report & Recommendation Zoning Map and Vicinity Map Recommended Action: Council Concur Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ Amount Budgeted: $ Total Project Budget: $ SUMMARY OF ACTION: N/A N/A N/A Meeting: Regular Council -17 May 2010 Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Executive Staff Contact: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Transfer Amendment:$ Revenue Generated: $ City Share Total Project:$ N/A N/A NIA The hearing was held on March 17, 2009.The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal was published on April 20, 2009. The appeal period ended on May 12, 2009. No appeals were filed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation April 28, 2009 Minntes APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 7200 Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 David Petrie 811 S 273"' Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA 08-093, PP, ECF Southeast of 162nd Avenue SE and SE 140th Street Requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95-acre parcel into 36 lots for the eventual development of single-family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. Environmental Appeal of Mitigation Measures Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March I 0, 2009. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 17, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file (Yellow file) containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of oublication and other documentation =rtinent to the Exbibjt No. 2: Vicinity Map Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 2 review of the nroiect. Exhibit N<>. 3: Prelimin•rv Plat Plan E-'-ihit No. 5: Gradin!! Plan/Drainal!e Plan Exhibit Nn. 7: Tono<>rnnhv Mao Exhihit No Q: Proiect Time Line Exhibit No. 11; Typed Statement along with 3 Photos nresented bv Gwendolvn High Exhihit No. 13: Road Classification Mao E-'-ibit No. 4: Tree Retention Exhibit Nn. 6: Aerial Photo Exhihit No. R: Km!! Countv Zanini! Mao Exhi'-" No. 10: Revised Preliminarv Plat Plan Exbibi1 rill, 12; Drainage Report Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney had some preliminary issues to discuss: Mr. Watts was present and would testify during the Appeal portion of this hearing. The reason for requesting the Preliminary Plat portion to be heard first is to have the testimony heard in that hearing incorporated into the relevant part of the Appeal Hearing. There were no objections by the applicant. Relevant portions of the Kmg County Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan were offered to the Hearing Examiner. This project is vested to King County Development Standards, but it is the City's position that procedural rules of the City of Renton apply. A new copy of the appeal, which contains the streamlined specific appeal issues was presented. The appeal now has only three issues. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located in northeast Renton, just south of NE 4th Street (SE !28th Street) along the eastern border of the City. The site is located on the 14100 block, 162°d Ave SE is on the west and 164th Ave SE is on the east. The site is located in Kmg County and City of Renton R-4 zoning district. Both streets along the frontage of the site are unimproved. There is a pending plat just north of the site, Cavella. Ms. Timmons went through the Project Time Line with appropriate dates of events in relation to this plat. Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with 6 measures relating to erosion control, drainage, mitigation fees and monitoring for wetland and stream impacts. One appeal was filed by the applicant, which is before the Examiner today. The site is wned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However, the project is vested to the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and procedures of the King County Code and that the project, once annexed, would follow the rules and procedures outlined by the City of Renton code. The proposed density for the plat would be approximately 4/du per gross acre, the Jots range in size from 5,900 square feet to approximately 9,300 square feet. Access to the lots was originally proposed via 162"d Ave SE with three new internal streets extended from ! 62"d Ave SE. There are no minimum Jot size or depth requirements in the King County R-4 zone, however the minimum width requirement is 30-feet. The proposed lots would meet the width requirements. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 3 The proposed lots appear to provide adequate area to meet front, side and rear setback requirements. All setbacks would be verified at the time of building permit review. There is also adequate area to provide off-street parking of two spaces per each lot The site is heavily wooded and contains 266 trees of which 8 are proposed to remain. The applicant is in compliance with the County's tree retention requirements. A final tree retention plan will be required prior to utility construction. The landscape plan indicates the installation of 48 trees placed in the front yards of the lots along the interior roads to the site. In addition to street trees, 91 of the I 09 replacement trees are being used to buffer the site along 164" and the southern border until the sensitive areas tract is reached. The sensitive areas tract includes a Class III stream as well as a Class II wetland. A detailed landscape plan will be provided and approved prior to plat recording. King County requires 390 square feet of recreation space per lot be provided on site, the applicant has proposed recreation space within Tract B, which is also the drainage tract in the amount of20,200 square feet In addition the applicant has proposed a tot lot, sports field, and a sports court to comply with additional King County Code requirements. The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way. The only access to the site is via 164" A venue SE, due to impacts and distances from improved streets, the applicant was required to provide two points of access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety. Originally the access would have been from 162nd Ave SE, which the applicant proposed to make half street improvements on 162nd from the 13800 block south to SE 144th Street. Staff has since recommended that there be an east/west road connection. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat plan that shows entering the plat from 162nd and continuing east to 164th, which road would be designated SE 140th Place. This new road does not affect lot count. As part of the revised drawing the applicant would make half street improvements to 164" Avenue SE, which is currently 30-feet wide. As previously mentioned, 162nd Ave SE is encumbered by two separate wetlands plus a Class III stream. The applicant has requested a variance to modify the street frontage improvements to 162nd Ave SE. Development Services Division would review and make a recommendation following the preliminary plat hearing. A Transportation Mitigation Fee was imposed on this project.· School impact fees would also be required. The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. Drainage currently runs off from the northeast portion of the site to the Class III stream, water then flows southeasterly to the eastern side of 162nd Ave SE and disburses into sheet flow to the south within the unimproved 162nd Ave SE right-of-way to SE 144th Ave intersection where it then flows by culvert/pipe to the Cedar River and then to Lake Washington. The applicant would collect stormwater runoff and convey it into a proposed stormwater vault located in Tract B. The outfall would be conveyed back into the stream channel and leave the property. The applicant has proposed using the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, however the applicant has submitted a Level III downstream drainage analysis, which identifies several drainage problems. The ERC required the applicant to use the 2005 drainage manual for both detention and water quality improvements. The site is served by Water District 90. The property is currently served by public sewer, extension of the existing sewer line would be required to serve the new plat Hans Korve, DMP Engineer. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, 98002 stated that he would be doing the majority of Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 4 the speaking. Wayne Potter and Dan Balmelli from Barghausen, and Gary Norris a traffic consultant were also present representing the applicant. Toe new design addresses many of the issues; the primary access comes south along 162'• entering the site at SE 140th with a second access as required tol64th. This was done to meet the needs of the community and to provide a better product for future buyers. They are working with a new plat to the north, Cavella to provide improvements and secondary access to the entire area. Cavella bas agreed to extend 164th to the north. The Examiner stated that if this project were to be developed first, there must be a public access that serves Fire and Emergency Services as well as the residents. IfCavella fails to develop, then this project would be responsible for developing that road in its entirety. Mr. Korve stated that they understood that completely. 1bis is a private agreement between the three developments, Liberty Gardens, Cavella and Threadgill. 1bis agreement came about because all three projects needed secondary access in order to do improvements in this area. All three agreed to share the costs of doing the needed improvements on a per lot basis. They believed that the improvements made would eliminate most of the CARE concerns. Drainage issues will be addressed during the SEP A appeal. The Examiner stated that drainage would be needed for this project and while SEPA is out there, he needs to know what the proposed drainage is, and what improvements have been made. Mr. Korve stated that this project is perfectly self sustainable with the 1998 Manual Level Ill as proposed. King County agreed that the 1998 manual is more than adequate to address the issues. The report was provided as a group review for all three projects. The other two projects are not vested to the 1998 manual, so when Mr. McCarthy did his review it would have been useless to review to a standard for all three that only applied to one. When Mr. McCarthy did the overall review, he used the 2005 manual, did the analysis and made his representations. Mr. McCarthy was out of town and unavailable to be present at the hearing. His findings were in no way intended to be taken in the context that somehow the 2005 manual must apply to this project. That was never his intent and not what his conclusions meant to say and if that is what was understood, be apologizes. That was not his intention. 10:04 am: 10 minute break was taken. Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Engineers, 18215 72"' Avenue S, Kent 98032 stated that he is the project engineer for both the Liberty Gardens and Cavella projects. They also coordinated with the Threadgill project, which is further to the north, the three projects in conjunction hired Mr. McCarthy to complete a detailed Level Ill drainage analysis. All three projects bad the same downstream drainage issues. A portion of the Threadgill project drains to the same basin. It was beneficial to all three projects to have one study done to analyze the downstream system. Mr. McCarthy modeled the project in existing conditions and developed conditions; came to conclusions as to what the extent of the problems are and recommend options for either correcting the downstream problems or to provide on-site mitigation so the downstream conditions are not exacerbated. On page 3.1 of the study, the mitigation options are outlined; provide on-site detention to King County Level III flow control standard, some other options included downstream improvements, some conveyance system upgrades, and some improvements to the water quality system. The three parties all agreed to provide Level III on-site detention, King County reviewed this option and agreed to the mitigation. At that time it was proposed to extend 16200 from the project site to 144th, there is an existing Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April28,2009 Page 5 conveyance ditch and stonnwater pond within the right-of-way. With the construction of the roadway, the pond would have been eliminated. It was agreed that that portion of the roadway would be tightlined to provide more room for the road. Now that 162nd is not going to be extended to 144th the roadway would not require modifications and so the tightlining of the drainage channel is no longer required. This project should be approved under the 1998 standard. Gwendolyn High, CARE, PO Box 2936, Renton 98056 (home: 155 Y akirna Ave NE, Renton 98059) [a copy of these minutes and decision will be sent to both addresses] The following concerns are focused on KCC 21a 24, they are details that were not previously elaborated on: -Vegetation Management Plan, there is a requirement for protection of sensitive areas, the site is heavily wooded with 266 significant identified trees of which 8 trees are proposed to be retained. There is no indication regarding the logging practices. · The Examiner questioned the trees to be retained. A temporary erosion and sedimentary plan would be required, the code does allow the logging practices to be incorporated They asked that that be required. -Building setback requirement of 15 feet from all edges of all sensitive area buffers with the exception of impervious ground areas such as driveways and patios may be allowed, subject to special drainage provisions. The west terminus of SE 141" Place cul-de-sac and the driveway of Lot 28 are immediately adjacent, they are the boundary of the wetland buffer for Tract A. There is zero building setback and as such would require adherence to the King County 2005 drainage manual. -As far as they can tell, the access route for the sewer has not been determined, it may bave been slated to come up 162nd. !fit were still proposed to be run through the unimproved right-of-way of 162°" Ave SE code would prevent that, the sewer would have to go through the wetland buffers. -Mr. Foley stated in an earlier email that if the County were to consider a capital project on SE 144th the size, cost and complexity suggest that it would take years for it to be built. Some more limited downstream improvements by the developer might make more sense than an uncertain King County project. A downstream fix seems to be more feasible. This appears to support staff's requirements to using the 2005 Manual. -They were pleased to see that the applicant has proposed access to the site from the south via 164th, it does address quite a lot of the outstanding issues. There are general issues that still exist, there has been no consideration of the traffic flow patterns from the Alpine Nursery. The Transportation Impact Analysis did not consider any of the impacts along 144th, there was no intersection analysis presented. It appears that the TIA should be redone particularly with such significant impact that can be expected on 144th and the traffic issues there. In light that 136th would be the other main access, the intersection of 136th at 156th was the road that was required as a condition of the earlier plats in order to mitigate the impacts of SE !28th Ave and 160th Ave SE. To help that situation, King County required this new road from 160th to 156th, there was a failing level of service at the intersection of 136th and 15~. With the occupation of some of the new developments, traffic signals were needed and have been added and their classification is now that of an arterial. -Further concerns were with a sidewalk on 162nd there are sections that have sidewalk and sections that do not. There are some issues with people attending events and sporting events that are parking in that area with new drivers, insufficient lighting and no walkways and they would like to have curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire length of I 6200• -It appears that the improvements along 164th would be only half street improvements. It can be expected that Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 6 there would be more parking along that street as well. In the dark, inexperienced drivers with an inadequate parking situation, they would like the staff to review this area and make sure that they have public improvements to meet the actual public needs. -Two further things that the TIA did not consider are the two projects in the King County Transportation Needs Report for pedestrian improvements on 144th. There also is no walkway indicated on the map seen today from the eastern terminns of SE 144th cul-de-sac to the middle school. Previously there was a walkway proposed and it does not seem to be on the map now. Mr. Korve stated that that walkway was omitted when the new internal roads were designed. Ms. High continued with regard to the possibility of increased parking and access to the high school ball fields and the park near 164th Ave SE. King County agreed that the increased parking and access to the high school would make the TIA's so far submitted obsolete. Patricia Payne-Gammell, 16043 SE 142nd Place, Renton 98059 stated that she resides just southwest of the subject site. A group of neighbors filed an appeal on the extension of !62•• to the south because of the large ditch that travels down the right-of-way and joins the ravine of the plat and comes back into the drainage ditch on 162nd. Most of the concerns in the appeal have been taken care of if the extension of the road is not permitted. They are concerned about the impact of the drainage ditch and any of the site water that might enter this drainage ditch. The subject site is north of Mr. Moore's property (the western large lot at the southwest comer of the subject site), the Class Ill creek flows across the subject site, enters Mr. Moore's site and swings back to the west toward J 62•• street, and if any water is added to this small ditch, it would overflow and flood the corner Mr. Moore's basement. Gary Norris, PO Box 547, Preston 98050 stated that he is the traffic engineer representing the applicant. He prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis for Threadgill, Cavella and Liberty Gardens. The date on the report was October 2006, conditions and times have changed and development proposals in the area are increasing and would have impacts on any analysis that would have been done at that time. This Traffic Analysis was not required as part of the typical requirements of King County. The relevant section of the King County Code would be the Intersection Standards, which requires a development that is impacting an intersection by 30 or more pm peak hour trips to conduct an analysis and determine appropriate mitigation. None of the three plats involved in this analysis met that requirement individually. The County did ask the development to provide this analysis to facilitate an evaluation of the impacts of the projects on the high accident locations and the evaluation of the potential extension of SE 136th street from !62•• over and across to 1681h Avenue. That was the basis of the analysis done. In no case was there any consideration that the mitigation that would be required for impacted intersections or deficient level service standards, those were all accommodated through the concurrency and the MPS system elements of the King County Code. The effect of this document was to evaluate and determine that a secondary access would be beneficial to addressing the impacts to the high accident locations. Subsequently the desire to extend 162•• and now the connection to 164'h was a result of this analysis. In terms of the King County requirements, there would be no need to redo or update the Traffic Analysis. This plat does not generate more that 30 p.m. peak hour trips through a specific intersection. Concurrency is the King County analysis for different zones throughout the King County arterial network which they maintain on an ongoing basis. The concurrency analysis is constantly being updated with the new development as it occurs. At the time of this application, they were concurrent and so they were allowed to Liberty Gardens Prelimiruuy Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 7 proceed. A development is not allowed to proceed through the review process if it does not meet concurrency. If concurrency standards changed, it would not affect this project because it was already vested into the system. If the system should become non-concurrent the impacts of this plat have already been considered and is included in that analysis, it is still vested and concurrent as long as the application continues to move forward If the application drops, then it drops out of the system and the applicant must reapply. The high accident locations have been identified as being along 160th at SE 128th, 16200 Ave SE at SE I 28th and 164th Ave SE at SR900. Neil Watts, Director Development Services stated that he had reviewed the files and all the included reports. Typical trips made from a single family house peak hour are one per house that would mean 36 peak hour trips from this site. A real quick estimate of distribution would show approximately 70% of the trips going north and 30% would be heading south, which after doing the math that would be below the threshold. The street design requirements become somewhat complex due to several projects with similar requirements and overlapping requirements. Code requirements would be all adjacent right-of-ways, 162nd, 164th, all the interior streets with curb, gutter and sidewalks. On the adjacent existing streets the code would be half street improvements. The King County standards allow the reviewing jurisdiction to do some level of off-site improvements, this project would also require the extension of 16200 to the north to 13 ?th Place with half street improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalk along one side of the street. The new interior streets would need to be fully paved with curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides of the street. In the City of Renton, there are no variances for street modifications, they do modifications, this would be a modification and not a variance. This would typically be done as a staff modification prior to the hearing, however, since they did not have this particular submittal they have not done that. If the Examiner elects to keep the record open, they would provide a written modification from staff addressing 162°d and would be able to support that modification for any type ofroadway improvements south SE 140th Place. That would be contingent of no driveways coming off of that street. They would request a condition that no driveways be provided to any of these lots so that there would be no driveway access from either 164th or 162°d, all driveways would access from the internal streets. There have been some concerns about parking on 164th, there will most likely be some parking on that street with people going to playfield facilities at the high school. There would only be parking on one side of 164th. In working with the project to the north the intent is to continue the extension of164th to the north to the end of the other development site. Beyond that the lots are already developed and there does not appear to be an opportunity to extend the road beyond that point. The sewer would be extended up 164th. Regarding the King County Manual, for a fully wooded site such as this site appears to be no difference in amount of detention or water quality requirements between the '98 manual and the 2005 manual. However, there are some procedural differences between the two manuals, there also is a broader range of options that are allowed in the 2005 manual. The 2005 manual is also closer to being consistent with the City's NPDES requirements. It was strongly recommended that that condition be kept in place. The City's policy for the east plateau area has been for everything to go to the highest level of requirements available, which is the 2005 Manual. There are downstream drainage impacts from this site and this community has identified what the acceptable realm of environmental impacts for drainage is in this area. The 1998 Manual does not suffice for proper environmental protection for these community standards. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 8 Staff would not oppose the Hearing Examiner making this a plat condition. Regarding the Issaquah School District Impact Fee, in the body of the report it was listed to be paid at the time of building permit. The Impact Fees are, however established by City Code and code specifies that those fees are to be paid at building permit stage. (Condition #7) They also recommended that the street design include a pedestrian linkage between the most southerly cul-de-sac over to 164"'. Tract E was previously located between proposed Lots 18 and 19 and with the new interior roads, that access would now be located between Lots 19 and 20. They do recognize that there are challenges in this neighborhood as it develops and with the existing intersections, as the volumes increase there will probably be a likelihood for more accidents. The City will continue to make adjustments as they can. The purposes of the Traffic Mitigation Fees are to do the offsite improvements. There are some challenges for the intersections and pedestrian walkways. Regarding the missing gap on the sidewalk on 162°d, this project should be conditioned to bring the sidewalk all the way up to 137"'. The streets in this area have lots of capacity. Most of the time the level of service on these streets would be A, there may be times in the day that they would come down to B or C. On 164"' it will be Level Service A and it will remain that level of service. The neighbors are used to seeing very few cars on that street, with the change of the roadway system, the new development and the development to the north, they will see a significantly higher percentage of cars on these streets. These are acceptable levels of service and acceptable capacity to accommodate this development. No offsite improvements are being recommended. Doris Yepez, 16444 SE 135"' Street, Renton 98059 stated that she lives north of Liberty High School and she walks all around that area. She has walked on 164"' from Liberty High School where the ball fields are located. Back of the hall fields there is a dirt path that goes through to 164"', she was wondering what kind of improvements would be made in that area, there are a Jot of students that walk in that area. There is a development called Starwood there is a Jot of erosion and ruts in the path. The path has become so eroded with large ruts that it is now useable, there is a Jot of water coming down that direction now. The Examiner stated that the dirt path would become a half street with a curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side. Mr. Korve stated that the Liberty Lane sidewalk extension to the north according to King County does not require offsite improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalks, they usually do the fire access, the appropriate amount of pavement and then a shoulder. They request that they be held to the vested road standards for offsite improvements. There was some discussion as to improvements to the roadways, some would require full City standards, there may be some agreements between this project and Cavella, but if a secondary access is necessary, then this project must provide that road. That means that this development would be responsible for not only a pathway but actually a real sidewalk, curb, street and gutter in that location. Mr. Korve stated that it is the offsite portions, the areas not fronting this project under the King County road standards, once you leave your site, the level of improvements drops from the full urban frontage, which is the project's responsibility, to a lesser standard of safe walking. You still have to provide extended gravel or an 8-foot paved shoulder or something like that. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 9 The Examiner stated that 162nd would have to be developed up to SE 137th Place. There needs to be rrre access, domestic access and pedestrian access. Mr. Watts stated that there were a number of ways to cost share. Mr. Korye stated that with the clarification, they are in total agreement. The subject of re-introducing Tract E was proposed, the applicant would oppose such a condition on the basis that there is no need for this pedestrian connection now that 140th Place has been extended. Any children walking to or from the park or school would be going north and it is a short distance to go along the interior sidewalks. There is the security factor as well. Dan Balmelli stated that regarding the drainage concerns of CARE, first, a portion of the email from Steve Foley bringing up the potential for the offsite mitigations. Those were discussed with the County's staff and that was just some of the comments from Steve and the County staff, as a result of the final proposal and the complexity of the possible offsite proposals, they chose to propose the Level III, the County staff all reviewed and agreed to that mitigation and it became a condition. That issue has been addressed adequately. Second, the concern with 162"", since 162nd has been eliminated most ofCARE's concerns also have been removed. Their drainage will discharge into the channel at a very reduced and restricted rate under the Level III detention, it will re-enter the drainage channel and the existing pond further south of where most of their concerns with Mr. Moore's property. They are not required to mitigate for existing conditions. Rocale Timmons had three items: I. Pedestrians and potential students might not only travel north to Liberty High School, they might also travel south of 144th to the high school and elementary school in this area. 2. The applicant made reference to the building setbacks for the sensitive area tract. King County Code specifies that the driveway or access be setback 15-feet, but that special drainage considerations must be made for those areas or driveways that are abutting within that 15-foot setback. 3. Regarding the wetland at the NW portion, assuming that the southern portion of 162nd Ave SE is foregone, the applicant will need to submit a revised mitigation plan for impacts to that upper Class II wetland and buffer. Hearing was adjourned at 12:00 for lunch Hearing resumed at 1 :30 pm The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing was adjourned for lunch at 12:00 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 10 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located along portions of undeveloped rights-of-way. It is generally northeast of the intersection of 162nd Avenue Southeast and SE 142nd Street if those streets were extended. The eastern boundary is 164th Avenue SE if that street were extended. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently wned R-4 (Single Family-4 dwelling units/acre). The subject site is vested under King County's zoning which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation but the standards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against King County standards in effect when the application was submitted on December 29, 2004. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5398 enacted on August 11, 2008. 9. The subject site is approximately 8.95 acres of 389,862 gross square feet. The subject site is approximately 655 feet wide (east to west) by 594 feet deep. 10. The subject site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest with an average slope of about 15 to 20 percent. A Class II wetland and Class III creek are located in the southwest comer of the site. A Class II wetland is located offsite to the northwest. 11. The Class III stream requires a 25 foot buffer since it is non-salmonid bearing. The wetland requires a 50 foot buffer which encompasses the stream and stream buffer. In order to protect these critical areas the ERC required that they not be available for separate sale and that each abutting owner or the Homeowners Association have an undivided interest in the property. A 15-foot building setback line was also established from the edge of the preserved areas. 12. The tree inventory found approximately 266 significant trees on the subject site. The applicant proposes retaining approximately three percent of those trees and planting an additional 157 trees. 13. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 36 lots and 6 tracts. The lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet to 9,350 square feet. 14. Access would be provided by 162nd Avenue along the west boundary of the site and then by three new internal roads. Proposed SE 140th Place would run east into the site and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Prior to the cul-de-sac 163rd Avenue SE would branch off to the south and that in tum would intersect with Proposed SE 141st Place that would run east and west with both ends terminating in cul-de-sac turnarounds. 15. Proposed Lots I to 8 would run east to west across the north property line generally north of Proposed SE 140th Place. Proposed Lots 9, 10, 11 and 17 to 21 would be located along the eastern property line with access via two cul-de-sacs and pipestems or easements. Proposed Lots 28 to 36 would form a Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 11 two-tier block oflots in the west central area of the plat. The remaining lots would be clustered around the cul-de-sacs east and south of 163rd and 141st, respectively. 16. Staff has recommended that SE 140th Place be continued to the east as a through-street that would connect to 164th Avenue SE. An exhibit was submitted showing that roadway extended across the site. The lot count would remain at 3 6 even with the roadway extension. 17. Code requires the planting of one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage. That would be approximately 48 trees but might change if additional roads are developed as proposed by staff. The applicant proposes additional tree plantings in the drainage/recreation area. 18. The density for the plat would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre using King County standards. 19. The subject site is located within the Issaquah School District. Developments within that school district are required to pay an impact fee on a per lot basis. The fee is accessible at the time of building permit approval and is $6,021.00 per lot. 20. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 360 trips for the 36 single family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 36 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. Traffic analysis indicates that intersections can handle the additional traffic. King County's applicable concurrency standards do not require changes in the proposal or more specific traffic analysis since no one intersection will handle more than 30 afternoon/evening peak hour trips. Staff recommended that the applicant pay the City's mitigation fees for traffic. King County does require the identification of "High Accident Locations" (HAL) and they were identified. To help moderate impacts the City has recommended that traffic be better dispersed by opening a connection through the plat to the east, to 164th. This would allow traffic to flow out of the plat along two roads rather than just the western 162•d_ Separately, the applicant has entered into an agreement with two other proposed plats in the area for joint development of access road 162nd. Staff has recommended that the roadways meet the King County standards although a modification or variance may be appropriate. 21. Stormwater control is an issue for the subject site. There are existing flooding problems that were identified in the SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis (McCarthy, June 15, 2007) and his subsequent mitigation suggestions (March 3, 2008). Those two documents discussed and recommended Level 3 Flow Controls and references are to standards in the 2005 Design Manual. See a fuller discussion in the companion SEP A Appeal Decision issued as part of this concurrent Plat and Environmental review. Driveways are overtopped by stormwater and third party property floods serving as a de facto stormwater detention pond during storm events. Stormwater would be contained in a vault on Tract B and then directed back to its natural channels, the creek and wetland. 22. Sewer service will have to be provided to the proposed plat. A 15-inch line is located at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street and a 12-inch line is located in 160th. An 8-inch line meeting City standards will be required. 23. Water District 90 serves the site. A domestic water line will have to be extended to serve the site. 24. Neighbors were concerned about traffic and stormwater impacts of this development on the surrounding community. There was concern about parking and impacts on the school. Flooding, identified above, Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 12 was an issue. The natural features and trees were also presented as an issue. 25. The applicant noted that the McCarthy drainage documents were prepared for three projects including the subject application. They maintain that it does not mean that the recommendations in those documents for imposition of 2005 Design Manual are applicable to the subject proposal, only that it was not practical to separately address the needs of each project based on its own vesting timefrarne. CONCLUSIONS: 1. If the applicant complies with all the requirements under both King County and City regulations for sanitary sewer, domestic drinking water, stormwater control systems and access improvements the proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. In this case, things are complicated by the applicant's reliance on older King County regulations with the overlay in some instances of City requirements such as impact fees. While the applicant is entitled to protection, as it were, of older regulations that vest certain standards, that does not mean a plat which might exacerbate flooding problems can escape appropriate review. Whether one calls them environmental mitigation or making sure the plat provides for and accommodates the potential negative effects of its development, a plat can only be approved if the applicant submits a plat with appropriate features. There are different standards that apply to development. Some such as density, lot size, lot width and depth, building height and setbacks could be considered aesthetic. These factors determine how spacious lots are, the separation between homes, how large homes can be, aspects of development that are termed bulk standards. Then there are other standards that affect public safety or protect from property damage -stormwater control, erosion control, fueflow and safe drinking water and sanitary sewers. Then there are factors that might be considered a combination of aesthetics and safety -road width, sidewalks and street lighting. A paved street provides access for residents but it also needs to provide a safe durable and wide enough surface to allow emergency vehicles access without getting bogged down in mud or hampered by parked cars (safety) besides cutting down on dust and runoff(aesthetic). 2. In other words, this plat must provide appropriate stormwater controls. A report commissioned by this applicant specifically identified controls from the 2005 Design Manual. The applicant apparently chose a report that dealt with three projects and together the projects' impacts were reviewed and analyzed. There is no way to pull out or tease from these reports the separate measures that this applicant now expects to use, older, potentially less stringent measures, from those found in these reports. The reports specifically identified measures to assure that downstream flooding, flooding that affects roads, driveways and ponds on third-party property, is not worsened. The critical issue is that this plat cannot be approved if flooding might be exacerbated. This plat cannot be approved if it does not serve the public use and interest. This plat is held to the standards enunciated in the two McCarthy reports. The stormwater record and public use and interest is based on following those recommendations. The City Council should not approve this plat if those measures are not followed. The newer 2005 Manual reflects changes that overcome weaknesses, flaws or limitations in the older standards. The newer standards must be followed. 3. Similarly, as discussed in the companion Appeal portion of this report, sedimentation occurs when erosion occurs. Flooding problems associated with clearing nearly eight acres will be accompanied by erosion. Erosion should be controlled by the most modem methods of control. Those are contained in the Department of Ecology's most recent manuals. The applicant's plat cannot serve the public use and interest if wetlands are jeopardized by flooding which is accompanied by erosion. 4. The best management practices need to be applied to this project or it will not serve the public use and Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April28,2009 Page 13 interest. Again, things like lot sizes and building heights and bulk change in response to market demands, density preferences and aesthetics. But current knowledge of flooding and erosion and how to best handle them are very different issues. Life safety and the functioning of wetlands are critical issues that need to be properly addressed. This plat can only be approved if those consequences are appropriately solved 5. Staff reviewed traffic for the proposal and determined that under King County regnlations as well as the need for two points of entry, that traffic safety would be addressed by connecting a through street from east to west from 162nd to 164th. That appears appropriate. It provides better access for residents and certainly better access for both police and fire services. Separately, the applicant has entered into an agreement with two other proposed plats in the area for joint development of access road 162nd. Whether those agreements come to fruition or how they are timed will not eliminate the need for the access if this plat were to be occupied. Therefore, in order to approve this plat the appropriate roads that connect this plat with surrounding arterials will be required prior to sale or occupancy. 6. The proposal does appear to otherwise satisfy the bulk standards such as lot size, width and density required It meets the tree schedules required It will be protecting the natural areas if stormwater and erosion are appropriately handled. 7. The development of the subject site is appropriate given the Comprehensive Plan's objectives and the appropriate Zoning Code. The development will increase the tax base of the City. The new lots will provide additional housing choices for new residents and will protect the valuable amenities on the subject site. 8. The is no doubt that developing an eight acreage site that has been forested and undisturbed in the main will change the character of the site and the surrounding community. These changes were clearly anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning were adopted for the area and this site in particular. There will be more traffic and more comings and goings by new residents. Housing for new residents is a vital part of any planning process and changes result when property is finally developed. 9. In conclusion, the City Council should approve the proposed 36-lot plat subject to the conditions noted below. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 36-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Piao (TESCP) designed pursuant to State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Storm water Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction. 2. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention ( Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements." 3. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC as modified in the appeal Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 14 decision 4. The applicant shall provide an east/west road connection from 162nd Ave SE to 164th Ave SE in order to create highly connective road network. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187 as amended (1993 KCRS). 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan, depicting an east/west road connection from 162°d Ave SE to 164th Ave SE, which is also consistent with all preliminary plat review criteria. The revised plat plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Division and the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to engineering plan approval. 6. Both frontages, 162°d Ave SE and 164th Ave SE, for the full length of the property shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162°a Ave SE shall be designed and constructed to meet the urban neighborhood collector standard. No lot shall have a driveway entering off 162°a Ave SE or 164th Ave SE. 7. The applicant shall create pedestrian paths and links as determined by Staff. 8. The Applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 9. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots= $25,839.00) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. 10. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat recording. 11. The applicant shall pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160, D, tot eh City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $216,756.00 ($6,021.00 X 36 lots= $216,756.00). ****************************************************************************************** The hearing reopened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at I :35 p.m .. Appellant: Hans Korve Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Appeal LUA08-093 Ann Nielsen: Representing the City of Renton Ann Nielsen stated the appeal has been modified. The issues before the Examiner today are in Subsection B, I, Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 15 4 and 5, those are the three remaining issues. The following Exhibits were entered: Exhibit No . .I.: Anneal Timeline Exhibit No. r-Preliminarv Plat Plan Exhibit Nn. E: Aerial Photo -~ •~ • N.-.. ~. Plat Plan (March 16. 2008) Exhibit No. B: Vicinitv Mao Exhibit No. n: e Plan /2008) Exhibit "'o F: Tono=nhv Man · · Nn. u. Revised An,.,..al Letter Hans Korve stated that items I, 4 and 5 are the only items they are dealing with. No. I deals with the use of the DOE manual for stormwater and erosion control. They are vested to the King County 1998 Manual for erosion control. There was nothing in the environmental study that showed that the vested document was insufficient Where there is an acceptable level of service, in the case of the 1998 manual, temporary erosion control is very well covered. There is nothing unique about this site, there is nothing in the environmental review document produced by the City indicating that there is anything unique and special about this site that would require using the 2001 DOE manual to remedy. Part of staff's original presentation was that they would need an MPDES Permit which would supersede what is happening at the site. DOE would be monitoring the site during the development They would like to have the vested documents apply to the project. Using SEPA to undo vested rights seems to be wrong. No. 4 regards the maintenance and surety devices which is the driving force behind the appeal. King County code clearly allows bonding. He did not know if this was a policy statement as opposed to a development regulation by staff, they feel that the King County Code allows for bonding and they would like to be allowed to bond as per King County Code. There are no probable adverse environmental impacts that would justify the removal bonding as a viable means of taking care of maintenance, surety and performance issues with the plat. There was no discussion of this adverse environmental impact in the environmental study produced by the City. SEPA requires identification of the environmental impact and then show the mitigation. This issue was not covered. No. 5 covers the use of the King County manual. The appellant's engineer pointed out that the 1998 vs. 2005 manual are virtually the same in a forested condition. He agrees to that, the point remains that the use of SEP A to undo the vested rights is not appropriate. There would be no adverse harm is using the 1998 manual, they are virtually the same. The drainage facilities would be designed to the 1998 manual, King County acknowledges the 1998 manual more than sufficient to address the environmental impacts and it is also covered in the King County staff report, page 4 states that the drainage issues will be addressed through Level III flow control of the 1998 manual. Ann Njelsen stated that as previously stated prior to the Preliminary Plat hearing, she would like to have incorporated the relevant portions of the facts and testimony that were given. She would be relying on the information that was given during the Preliminary Plat stage and that they be incorporated into the Appeal hearing for purposes of factual testimony and evidence for the appeal. She would present a summary to wrap up the Appeal hearing. Regarding the surety issue, the City does concede that the appellant is clearly vested to the King County Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 16 Development Standards, however, they have always maintained the position that it is the procedural roles of the City of Renton that apply here. With respect to the surety devices, the King County code speaks to financial guarantee. Mr. Korve is relying on these particular provisions to request that they be considered a bond as proposed to the satisfied surety, which is more in line with what the City of Renton requires. This is a procedural issue, there is nothing in the King County Code provisions that would lend itself to being a development code and as such the City would submit that as a procedural aspect of this should be compelled to submit to the City of Renton procedures. It was her understanding that there is a City of Renton ordinance that specifically requires a set aside or surety in lieu of a bond. The difference between the two is that cash is set aside in a bond and not available to the developer as opposed to getting a bond from a bonding company where you pay 3% of a million dollars, so they are only out the 3%, it's like buying an insurance policy. Regardless of what the times are, it has been the City's policy to require a surety device, which has been through years of experience where a bond has been found to he insufficient. The nature of this particular plat is such that there is going to be a higher level of environmental concerns and the issue of a five year monitoring of the wetland versus three years. There is a higher level of environmental concern here, as a result this was tied into a SEPA condition, and this is purely a procedural issue and they would ask the Examiner to render a decision with that information in mind. There was discussion between Ms. Nielsen and The Examiner as to whether this matter was truly a SEP A condition or purely a procedural issue and how it should be handled. In the environmental checklist that was submitted, the I 0/13/2005 report, it talks about proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impact, if any. A further section reads; A Level I drainage analysis prepared by DMP engineering and a Level Ill drainage report prepared by Ed McCarthy are available for review. These reports analyzed the required onsite detention requirements as well as analyzing the downstream drainage basin. The stormwater detentiou manual requires that the project engineer analyze impacts to downstream drainage systems and make recommendations with respect to any proposed measures to improve offsite drainage. The last sentence reads: please review the drainage reports for any potential required measures to help reduce or control surface water impacts. Ms. Nielsen continued to read from the McCarthy report regarding roadway flooding along SE 144"' which was considered to be a severe flooding problem according to King County Standards. Between the intersection of 162°d Ave SE and 160"' Ave SE the driveway culverts along the ditch to the north side of SE 144"' Street, would cause the north side of SE 144th street to become overtopped posing a threat of unpaved access due to driveway edges. This would cause an unsafe condition. There are several drainage issues emanating from this development. There are broader options in the 2005 manual and they are more consistent with the NPDES regulations. It further indicstes that the City generally in the east plateau area bas consistently used the 2005 manual. Given the particular nature of this project, the lower manual that they are vested to does not adequately address the specific environmental issues that are unique to this particular site. She asked that the Hearing Examiner to focus on the testimony and evidence that was presented by Mr. Watts to show that this particular site has specific unique environmental impacts that necessitate the mitigated conditions that were proposed, namely the elevation of the 1998 stormwater manual to 2005 standard along with the erosion control manual up to DOE standards. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April28,2009 Page 17 Mr. Korve stated that staff has brought up the King County Staff Report and King County Findings and yet ignored or discounted the actual report as it was presented to the Examiner that they believe the 1998 manual was more than enough to address the issues, it was in their MDNS and in the staff report. The concerns of the community are valid and important, that is not a justification for imposing a SEP A condition, the City is required to indicate in their Environmental Review what the issues are, how they are adverse and significant and then how this proposed condition mitigates that. The simple statement that this is a site with wetlands is not a compelling argument for circumventing applicable code, many sites and King County and Renton have wetlands, there is nothing unique and special about this one. The NPDES that they are required to adhere to as part of the stormwater controls is beyond City regulations it goes to State and National regulations that are used in implementing the National Pollution Stormwater controls. Those items of stormwater control will be addressed through the NPDES process, DOE will have monitoring crews out, there is a person assigned to the site who will be available at all times. The Examiner stated that the issue appears to be whether they want to come back and try policing after the erosion has occurred or make sure that the project complies with current standards that address the problem. However, this plat must pass muster today, he must make a recommendation to the Council that with the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC are addressed and covered appropriately. Stormwater and erosion control are met by this plat and will not exacerbate problems. Mr. Korve stated that these issues are not actually the main issues of their appeal. The key issue is the surety, a financial situation. It is in the King County code, it is an adopted ordinance and is part of their development regulations, there whole section on wetlands and how to mitigate and how to assure that wetlands are mitigated, maintained and monitored refers to Section 27a, which is the surety section; that is not a policy statement, it is a Code. The Examjner stated that he did not know if the Courts had established what vesting covers, it usually is density, zoning, yards and things like that. He did not know if it deals with monetary issues or not. He may ask the City Attorney for clarification in this matter. He is not sure it is an issue he can decide The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2: 10 p.m. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The appellant, Hans A. Korve, filed an appeal of an environmental determination issued by the City on December 15, 2008. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 3. The appellant is Planning Manager for a proposed plat known as Liberty Gardens. The plat would divide approximately 8.95 acres into 36 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat! Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April28,2009 Page 18 4. The subject site is located east of 162nd Avenue SE and north of SE 144th Street. 5. The subject site was annexed to the City on August II, 2008 by Ordinance 5398. Prior to annexation the property was under the jurisdiction of King County. 6. Just prior to the Public Hearing the appellant amended their appeal and limited the appeal issues to three primary issues. The ERC imposed six conditions in its Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. The appellant ultimately challenged three of those conditions. The challenged conditions, numbered per the original determination, are: "I. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction. 4. The applicant shall provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) (italics in original), prior to plat recording, set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost, to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years. 5. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements." 7. A major contention of the appellant is that this project was initiated when the property was located in King County and that the appellant is entitled to develop the subject site under land use rules and regulations that were in effect when the application was submitted. The application was submitted on December 29, 2004. 8. The appellant also maintains that SEPA, specifically, RCW 43.21C.240 prohibits the imposition of SEP A mitigation conditions if the impacts generated by the project are already addressed by existing regulations. "Furthermore, Subsection ( 4) A states that a development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the municipality, through the planning and environmental review process under Chapter 36.?0A RCW and this chapter, bas identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and : '(b) The legislative body of the municipality has designated as acceptable certain levels of service or development standards required or allowed by chapter 36. 70A RCW"' Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 19 9. The appellant argued that the King County 1998 Storm Water Design Manual provided applicable standards for both stormwater mitigation as well as erosion control measures. Those were the standards applicable to stormwater and erosion when the proposal was submitted on December 29, 2004 under which the appellant argues they are vested. 10. Finally, the appellants argue that the manner in which the ERC imposed financial guarantees to assure the proposed wetland and buffer mitigation improvements were accomplished did not include methods permitted by the King County Code, namely bonding. The claim is the appellant is vested in this method or, at least, can avail themselves of this method. 11. A downstream drainage analysis was prepared for the appellant's project as well as two nearby parcels. The tbree projects are Threadgill, Cavella and Liberty Gardens, the appellant's project The analysis is titled "SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis" (Ed McCarthy, June 15, 2007). 12. The Cover Page of the SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis, hereinafter Analysis includes the following text: "Prepared for: Mr. Dave Petrie 811 So. 273rd Ct. Des Moines, WA 98198." 13. Page 1-1 states: "The conveyance route is downstream from tbree proposed single-family residential developments that are current under drainage review at King County DOES. These developments include Threadgill Plat, Liberty Gardens, and Cavella." ( emphasis supplied) Page 2-8 SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis (Ed McCarthy, June 15, 2007): "Roadway flooding along SE 144th Street would be considered as 'severe roadway flooding problem' ( enclosed in quotes in original) according to King County standards (King County Department of Natural Resources, January 2005) due to the following conditions: Between the intersections of 162nd Avenue SE and 160th Avenue SE driveway culverts along the ditch on the nortb side of SE 144th Street would become overtopped, posing a tbreat of unsafe access due to indiscernible driveway edges. Floodwater over the driveways on the nortb side of SE 144th Street between 160th Avenue SE and CB-llA would be deeper than 0.5 foot posing a severe impediment to emergency vehicle access." 14. Driveways, according to the report, would be overtopped by 0. 7 feet. The report also indicates that overflow from catch basins is conveyed to the west in the nortb side of the roadway until it reaches low lying private property where it settles. Neighbors reported this property does get flooded. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 20 15. Ed McCarthy submitted a letter or report to King County ODES on March 3, 2008. It was intended as a follow up to his initial report with suggested mitigation measures. It states in its opening paragraph: "The results of the hydraulic assessment I prepared for the downstream conveyance system (June 15, 2007) predicted flooding along the north side of SE 144th Street and at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE. There has also been residential flooding at SE 142nd Place, which is adjacent and tributary to the downstream system of the proposed developments. After consideration of the basin and downstream conditions, I offer the stormwater mitigations described below for the proposed plat to address existing flooding problems along SE 144th Street and at the end of SE 142nd Place." 16. He then describes conditions that could aggravate "an existing severe flooding problem." (Page 2, Para I) Continuing at Paragraph 2: "On the other hand, adopting Level 3 flow control would mitigate impacts of the projects on this downstream flooding area. The predicted 100-year stage in the downstream flood flow path would not be increased. In light of the downstream conditions, providing Level 3 detention standards is an appropriate stormwater mitigation for each of the proposed developments." Paragraph 3 contains the following statement: "These estimated volumes do not include a factor of safety which would increase the required volumes ... " 17. His letter concludes with this text "Please note that the applicants for the proposed plats willingly offer the mitigations that would benefit the property owners along SE 142nd Place provided that the mitigations can be designed and implemented without incurring unreasonable delays that may be confronted in acquiring construction easements, permits, or other construction-related authorizations." 18. There had been an earlier determination by the ERC and an appeal was filed by neighbors of that determination. The City rescinded that decision and the appeals were voided at that time. Therefore, no part of this decision is directed at the earlier determination or appeal. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC including conditions it found necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development on City services and facilities will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed in part and reversed in Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 21 part. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is Jess demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (!) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ... Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and Jong-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060( 4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-l l-060(4)(d)). In the current case, the Drainage Report and Mitigation letter specifically refers to the 2005 Design Manual. Page references are to the manual. Real flooding occurs under existing conditions and would increase with this development. 7. The appellant maintains that the King County standards that were applicable to this project when it was submitted on December 29, 2004 are controlling under the vested rights doctrine. This office has to disagree. The appellant is correct when it comes to certain aspects of review. At the same time, the ERC is entitled to review the record including evidence of flooding and potential mitigation measures. The ERC is especially permitted to rely on documents and reports submitted by the appellant or appellant's representatives. The report and mitigation documents submitted by the appellant or on behalf of the appellant recommend Level 3 of the 2005 King County Manual. While those documents may not have acknowledged or distinguished the appellant's vested rights, they appear to recommend the most appropriate method of dealing with stormwater where critical, life-safety issues were identified or where property rights were affected. The appellant and other property owners apparently chose the combined report for three projects, Threadgill, Cavella, and the appellant's own Liberty Gardens. Each developer submitted applications at a different time and potentially vested in different requirements. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 22 The appellant's consultant did not distinguish the different projects or their different submission dates. Rather the review suggested appropriate measures that would not exacerbate stormwater issues that resulted in overtopped culverts, flooded driveways and ponding on private property. 8. So whether one looks at whether or not vested rights guarantees the application of old standards or whether or not King County Code takes precedence over SEPA review, there is no escaping that the recommendations submitted on behalf of the appellant recommend the imposition of Level 3 conditions -2005 Manual. The ERC properly considered this evidence and the appellant failed to demonstrate that the reliance on the reports was clearly erroneous. 9. Again, the appellant invited the ERC to make the decision they did by presenting the City with the two documents by McCarthy. One was the Level 3 drainage analysis and then his proposed mitigation measures. Those documents indicated that flooding and/or ponding of water occurs and could be exacerbated by the new development. Yes, the report is based on three (3) separate projects and those projects may be subject to separate code standards under certain "vesting doctrines" but this applicant chose the route of a consolidated report and it is that report that suggested the newer standards were appropriate to avoid creating additional stormwater problems in this area. So, back to a basic environmental question -would the development of this project cause more than a probable impact on the quality of the environment? If so, are there appropriate mitigations measures that can avoid those impacts? The first question is answered by reports that suggest that flooding is already an issue and it would likely be exacerbated by this project. Can those impacts be mitigated? Apparently, the reports suggest that following the newest standards would avoid further harm to the area. JO. Now, does the fact that flooding was identified as a problem that imposing ofnewer standards would mitigate those problems mean that the newer erosion control standards of the 2001 DOE Manual are also appropriate? Or would the older standards be sufficient. It would appear that stormwater flooding would more probably than not sluice materials in any drainage course and also on surfaces. Clearing the property as generally proposed and removing the heavy vegetative cover that exists was expected to increase flooding. It seems that such deforestation would also increase erosional impacts. The newer standards are designed to protect stream and wetland areas from sediment. Unlike certain bulk standards that are mainly directed as aesthetic qualities where vesting does not generally invite additional harm, stormwater and by extension erosion standards address harmful conditions that more current knowledge was intended to address. This office believes that the ERC properly applied the newer 2001 DOE Manual's standards to address real problems with erosion. 11. This leaves the final issue, the appropriateness of the method imposed to guarantee the proposed wetland and buffer mitigation improvements. This office understands that there are financial consequences to how wetland mitigation is financed but there does not seem to be a tenable link between the method of financing the guarantees and the environmental outcome. Additionally, this condition seems one that is already regulated by Code and one that the ERC, itself, might not need to address. This office fmds little relationship between the method of guaranteeing, bonding, letter of credit or what have you, a mitigation measure and the impact to be mitigated. Clearly, the mitigation required needs to be accomplished or the project would fail to pass environmental review creating untoward unmitigated environmental impacts. But that does not mean the ERC bas a right to impose a specific manner of accomplishing the guarantee. The fact that this office bas agreed that Condition #4 is an inappropriate SEPA mitigation measure does not mean that the City does not have the ability to require the same manner of guarantee to accomplish the same environmental result under its other ordinances. This office does not rule on the vesting principle in resolving this issue in the appellant's favor as a matter of SEPA review. Condition Number 4 was erroneously imposed by the ERC and is Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 23 reversed. 12. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. This office finds the ERC appropriately reviewed the stormwater documents and appropriately applied the mitigation measures suggested by those documents. No reasons were advanced to suggest this office reverse that decision or substitute another judgment. On the other hand, Condition Number 4 seems an inappropriate decision to backup up the appropriate decision requiring wetland mitigation itself. 13. The appealing party has a burden of demonstrating error and that was only partially met in the instant case. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Conditions I and 5 are affirmed. Condition 4 is reversed and removed from the determination. ORDERED THIS 28th day of April 2009. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 28"' day of April 2009 to the parties ofrecord: Rocale Timmons Kayren Kittrick Development Services Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Daniel Balmelli, PE Marshall Brenden Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18225 SE 128th Street 18215-72nd Avenue S Renton, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032 HansKorve Linda Corgiat Drop Eng., Inc. 16039 SE 142nd Place 726 Auburn Way N Renton, WA 98059 Auburn, WA 98002 Norm & Patricia Grammell Don & Andrea Gregg 16043 SE 142nd Place 16046 SE 142•d Place Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon Jennifer McCall 14201 -164th Ave SE Lozier Homes Corp. Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215-72•d Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 14zn<1 Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147"' Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E. PO Box2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 24 Renton, WA 98059 !203-I 14th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Ave SE Curtis Schuster Renton, WA 98059 KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Kolin Taylor Bellevue, WA 98005 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Ave SE Steve Bottheirn, Supervisor Renton, WA 98059 CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Trishah Bull Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Shirley Goll, ASH Bruce Whittaker, Sr. Engr. CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 CAS LUSD MS OAK DE O I 00 Kris Langley, Sr. Engr Traffic King County ODES CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Ave SW Larry West, Env Scientist Renton, WA 98057 CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Alex Perlman DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 TRANSMITIED THIS 28th day of April, 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire 811 S 273"' Court Des Moines, WA98!98 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Kirn Claussen, PPMIII CPLN LUSD SE OAK DE 0100 Kelly Whiting, KC DOT RD SERV DIV MS OAK DE 0100 Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Lisa Dinsmore ODES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Chad Tibbits DOES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Cohklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section l OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration mnst be filed in writing oo or before 5;00 p.m., May 12, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambignities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Page 25 Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. Ao appeal must be filed in writing op or before 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2009. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,~ execnted Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation ofthis doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Do!'trine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • • EXHIBIT 8 k. East Renton Zoning 2004 Legend """Urb811 Growth Boundary 2004 ~st-eeis Q Parcels (I Liberty Ame:xation Ania dJA lntxll'l)Oraled Areas 200<! Zoning 2004 ~ A-10-PQ'icul\Jral, one DU per 10 acres #fl A-35 -PgiCJI\Jra[, one DU per35 aaes lfl F-Forest ,llJI M -Mineral RA-2.5-Rlnl Area, one DU per 5 acres RA-5-R"°al Ana, one DU per 5 acres 1151 RA-10-Ri.r.l!Area, one DU per 10 acras UR-Urban Resef\le, one OU per5 aa-es R-1 -Residential, Ol'll:! DU per acre R-4 -Resldentlal, 4 DU per am R-6 -Residential. 6 DU per acre .rf R...S -Residential, 8 DU per acre ,;gi R-12·R~o~tial,12DUpe,""' if/A R-18 • Residential, 18 DU per aqe ~ R-24 -Res.ldential, 24 DU per aae ~ R-48 -Resldent!al, 48 DU per acre ~ NB -Neighborhood Business ,.. CB-Community Business ,,,. RB -Regional Business .,,. 0 • Olli<e ~ I-Industrial 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Mr£: MONnt« MARCH 9, 2009 2:26:20 PM ,:, M:\SHEU..EY\MAPS\20091B\20090309_RNJONING04.MKD /;: ~\MAPS\Z00903\WllSONSM_20090309_flN_l~.PO .,,_: M..SONSM 111o-..-lnd-.. ttu-ha-......,awit,r N'qj!O,,.., __ owniljlol-.... S~lo"'- -.t -QogC...,-... .-« -· -.. ""Pi""--··-·...,.._ --. .. ._. ..... _"' ____ ~-rtt =.::.~..:::::11-~~~ !""""'"""'""',.,...~""' .. ._•_"' .. --........ p. ,,,,,_ofl!lll~Of -... ,. ..... i.,--aap.11,--pom-...or .. -.. Department of Community & Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator -. . . - EXHIBIT 2 -··-"" File Name: H;\CED\GIS_projects\vicinity_maps\ mxds\parcets _ 145700145&0150 _liberty _garden. mxd • Liberty Garden Vicinity Map February 24, 2009 0 150 300 600 Feet 1:6,000 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on March 6, 2009. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum, qf $91.00. ;_-;/ /@ii$ ?7! ;?;/tM PLinda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn IQ me this 9th day of March, 2009. the State of Washington, Residing ''"""''''11 ..::-'''' QALS,S 11 ,,1 ..:::,. -~ ,,,,\\\\\\11, Q '1, .=" A.' -~~oN E>c1>)_::1 11 'i ---.. _~., ·r: ,, / -Z . ..,-~ "i,ARy ~ .. ,,. Z ; \._,.; 3~ O ..,. ~ ~ _.. ~ :=~ ~ :;::. z ,,, ~ ~0 .-!'.o::::: ,::;, \c' ~ E,-~ ~ .. :~" }'"'_! 0 E 'Z l..P -i1,_\<2l ....... -.... ~:: / , IV .._,, .A' -,, ,,,. "1 ",\\\\\'-'-'' C.:,' . .;: 1111 1 !'lo OF \JIJ p.; ,,..::-11 ,,, 111111,"''' NOTICE Of APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON An appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the ~vemh floor of Renton City Hall, \055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on March 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: Lihe"ty Ga['dens Preliminary Plat Appeal LUA08-093, ECF, PP Location: Southeast of 162nd Street SE and SE 140th Street. Appeal of Environmental Review threshold Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated; spcci fie a 11 y mitigation measures related to drainage, wetlands. and erosion control. Proposal is to subdivide an 8.95 acre site into 36 single family lots. The public heming for the Liberty Garden.<; Preliminary Plat will be heard immediately following lhe appeal hearing. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the City Clerk's Office, Seventh Floor, City Hall, Renton. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Published.in the Renton Reporter on March 6. 2009. #191658. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHING TON ) ) ss. County of King ) Julia Medzegian being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 28'd day of April 2009, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Application, Petition or Case No.: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat SEPA Appeal LUA 08-093, ECF, PP The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT '· • ,. •• ,_ ' ' ... PUBLIC City of Renton HEARING Department of Communirv and Economic Development PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: REPORT DATE: March 17, 2009 Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Applicant: Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consnlting Engineer, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 Owner: David Petrie, 811 S 273rd Court, Des Moines, WA 98198 File Number: LUA08-093, ECF, PP (King County DOES File No. L04P0034) Project Manager: Rocale Tinnnons, Associate Planner Project Description: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162"' Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class III stream are located in the southwest comer of the property. The subject property was am1cxed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Project Location: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 140 1h Street Project Location Map City of Renton Community and Economic lopment Departmenr LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 17, 2009 Page 2 of 12 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Vicinity Map Preliminary Plat Plan (7/7/2008) Tree Retention / Conceptual Landscape Plan (7/7/2008) Grading Plan/ Drainage (7/7/2008) Aerial Photo Topography Map King County Zoning Map C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: David Petrie 811 S 273ro Court Des Moines, WA 98198 2. 3. 4. Zoning Designation: Comprehensive Plan Designatio11: Existi11g Site Use: Residential -4 du/ac (R-4); (King County -R-4) Residential Low Density (RLD) (King County -Urban Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Vacant-Pending Single-Family Preliminary Plat (R-4 zone) East: Liberty High School (King County R-4 zone) South: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) West: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) 6. Site Area: D. HISTORICAVBACKGROUND: Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Land Use File No. NIA NIA NIA 8.95 acres (389,862 gross square feet) Ordinance No. 5398 5099 5100 Date 8111/2008 11/1/2004 11/1/2004 Water: The property is currently not served by a public water system. There is an existing water main in 160th Avenue SE, part of the Water District #90 system. Sewer: The property is currently not served by a public sewer line. There is a City of Renton 15-inch sanitary sewer line at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE and SE 144'' Street. A 12-inch diameter sewer line is in 160th Avenue SE. Surface Water/Storm Water: Surface water conveyance facilities currently are available to serve this site in SE 144 th Street 2. Streets: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way; 162nd ave SE and 164th Ave SE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department Cizv of Renton Community and F:conomic eiopmt!nl Deparrmrnr LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT PUBLIC HEARING DAT£ l'darch /7, 2009 I'relimina1y Report to Ifie flearing F.xaminer LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (King Coumv DDES File No. L04P0034) Page3of12 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE KING COUNTY CODE: 1. Title 16 Grading (Dec 2004) Section 16.82.156 Significant Tree Retention 2. Title 19A Land Segregation (Dec 2004) 3. Title 20 Planning (Dec 2004) 4. Title 21A Zoning (Dec 2004) ~ DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC ODES) for review on December 29, 2004. During the review by King County the applicant submitted two separate street vacation requests, for the vacation of both 164'" Ave SE and 162"d Ave SE, of which both were denied. After multiple revisions, on June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold determination, Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), was issued by KC DDES. An appeal of the SEPA determination was filed by Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ("CARE"), on July 7, 2008. As required by state law, the hearing for this appeal was combined with the hearing on the preliminary plat application and scheduled to be heard on July 17, 2008 before the King County Hearing Examiner. Due to the appeal filed the scheduled hearing was postponed. Before this matter could be heard, the subject property was annexed into the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal and the application for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a DNS for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by KC DDES on June 20, 2008. ERC adopted KC DOES' threshold determination solely to comply with state law provisions to hold only one open record hearing to hear the preliminary plat and all appeals; and to initiate a new appeal period. On October 22. 2008, during the new appeal period, a second joint appeal of the SEPA determination was filed by 7 individuals who live in the vicinity of the property. During the process of preparing for the appeal, City Staff discovered that the circumstances surrounding this plat necessitated a more thorough review. Moreover, further analysis of the case revealed that the DNS recommendation previously issned by King County and relied upon by the ERC may create conflict and problems with the ensuing plat review. Therefore, the ERC decided, on November 10, 2008, to rescind the October 61 h threshold dctennination pending further analysis of potential environmental impacts of the project. The rescission of the ERC's DNS negated the two existing appeals. On December 15, 2008, ERC issued a new Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M); for which one appeal was filed by the applicant. The project site is located between 162"' Ave SE on the west and 1641h Ave SE on the east; and SE 140'" St to the north and SE 142"' St to the south. Access is proposed via 162"' Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via three new dead-end public streets; SE 1401h Place, 163"' Ave SE, and SE 141" Place. All lots would have access to a public street via separate private driveways. Proposed lot sizes range from 5,913 to 9,353 square feet with an average lot size of 7,015 square feet. The proposed residential density would be approximately 4.0 du/ac. The site is vegetated primarily with trees and shrubs. A tree inventory indicates approximately 266 significant trees are on the site, of which City of Ren/on Comm1111i1y and Economic ·efopment Depar1111rn1 Preliminwy Report to the Hearing Examiner LUAOB-093, PP, ECF (Ki11g County DDES File No. L04P0034) LIBLRTY GARDLNS PRELIMINARY PLAT PUBUC HEARING DAT£ A1arch 17. 2009 Page 4 ofll 3 percent are proposed to remain following development. The applicant is proposing to plant a total of 157 trees. The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the northeast quarter to the southwest quarter of the site. A Class 2 wetland is located in the southwest comer of the property and is associated with a small Class 3 intermittent stream. In addition there is another isolated Class 2 wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest corner of the site. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City ofRenton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on December 15, 2008, the Enviromnental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included 6 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 22, 2008 and ended on January 5, 2009. One appeal of the threshold detennination has been filed. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Enviromnental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction. 2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 4. The applicant shall provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter), prior to plat recording, set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost; to guarantee satisfactory performance or the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years. 5. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. 6. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Consistency With Preliminary Plat Criteria Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision-makers in the review of the plat: City of Renton Community and Economic opment Depar1111ei11 Preliminary Report to the I-fearing Examina LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) L1BER1Y GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 17. 200Y Page 5 of 12 a) Compliance with the Comprehensil•e Plan Designation The site is designated Urban Rcsi,kntial-Medinm on the King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Urban Residential-Medium land use designation is implemented by the following King County zones: R-4; R-6; R-8; and R-12. The proposal is consistent with three of the four following Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies: Policy U-133. Urban residellfiu! 11eir;hborhood design should preserve historic and natural characteristics and neighhorlwod identity, while providing privacy, community space, and safety and mobility/or pedesrriuns and bi eye/is ts. " Policy Objective Met D Not Met Policy U-140. Residential D('1'elop111ents within the Urban Growth Area, including mobile home parks, shall provide lhefi,l!owing types of improvements. a) Paved Streets (and alleys if appropriate), curbs and sidewalks, and internal walkways when aprm,priate: b) Adequate parking o/1// consideration of access to bus service and passenger facilities; c) Street lighting and sl/"eet rrees: d) Stormwater control: e) Public water supplv: j) Public sewers; and g) Landscaping around rhc pcri111eter and parking areas of multifamily development. ,I' Policy Objective Met D Not Met Policy U-142. Recreation .1poce hased on the size of the developments shall be provided on- site except that in limited cases. fee payments for local level park and outdoor recreation needs may be accepted. ,I' Policy Objective Met D Not Met Policy T-307. King Countv (City of Renton) should encourage the development of highly connective, grid based arterial and non arterial road networks in developments and areas of in-fill development. To this cnd. the County (City) should: a. Make specific deter111i11ative findings to establish non-arterial grid system routes needed for public and emergency access in in-fill developments at the time q{land use permit review. b. Encourage new commercial, multifamily, and single-family residential developments to develop highly connective street networks to promote better accessibility by all modes. The use of cul-de-sacs should be discouraged, but where they are used. they should include pedestrian pathways to connect with nearby streets. D Policy Objective Met "Not Met Staff Comment: As proposed SE 140 1 " Place and SE 141" Place would dead-end in cul-de- sacs and would preclude potential for street connectivity. Staff considered the potential connection of the proposed streets to 1641h Ave SE, abutting the property to the west, in order to allow for street connectivity and reduce the use of cul-de-sacs. Staff has determined that connectivity could be achieved if there were an east/west road connection from 162"' Ave SE to 1641 h Ave SE. In addition, there are no environmental or topographical Ci(v of Renton Community and Economic ·elopment Depumm w LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT PUBLJC HEARi/VG DATE Afarch I 7, 2009 Pre/imina1y Report tu 1he Hearing Examiner LUA08-093, PP, ECF (King County DDES File No. l04P0034) Page 6 of !2 constraints that would preclude the applicant from providing such connection. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of an approval, the applicant provide an east/west road connection from 162"d Ave SE to 164'" Ave SE in order to create a highly connective road network. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187 as amended (1993 KCRS ). In addition staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit a revised plat plan depicting the east/west road connection from 162"a Ave SE to l 64'" Ave SE, which is also consistent with all preliminary plat review criteria. The revised plat plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Division and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to engineering plan approval. b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The subject site is designated R-4 on the City of Renton Zoning Map however the project is vested to the King County (KC) R-4 standards. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of 36 new single-family dwelling units. Density: The base density for the subject site is 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The allowed number of lots is computed by multiplying the site area by the base density; therefore the applicant would be allowed 36 lots once rounded up (8.95 ac x 4.0 du/ac = 35.8 lots). Rounding up is allowed per KCC 21A.12.070 Calculations. Lot Dimensions: There is no minimum lot size or depth requirements in the KC R-4 zone. A rninimwn lot width of 30 feet is required. As proposed and demonstrated in the table below, all lots meet the requirements for minimum width. Net Lo Area Area Area Widt t lsn. ft.' Width Lot isn. ft.\ Width Lot (sn. ft.) h 1 7,173 73 13 6,723 100 25 7,125 65 2 7,000 70 I 14 6,496 66 26 5,913 84 3 7,000 70 15 6,525 37 27 7,008 62 4 7,002 70 16 6,481 86 28 9,353 70 5 6,502 65 17 7,606 70 29 8,175 65 6 6,502 65 18 7,683 65 30 7,196 65 7 6,701 50 19 6,580 65 31 6,855 70 8 8,378 70 20 6,571 65 32 6,998 70 9 7,143 65 21 7,655 63 33 6,871 70 10 6,455 65 22 6,575 65 34 6,489 65 11 8,541 100 23 6,500 65 35 6,499 65 12 7,053 86 24 6,361 65 36 6,859 70 Setbacks: The required setbacks in the KC R-4 zone are as follows: street setback is IO feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for any attached garage, carport, or other fenced parking area; and interior setbacks are 5 feet. As proposed all lots appear to contain adequate area to provide all required setback areas. Compliance with building setback requirements would be reviewed at the time of building permit review. City ofRenlun Community and Economic. opment Depar/1!1('111 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Lraminer LUA08-093, PP, ECF (King Cou11tv DDES File No. L04P0034) l!BF.RTY GARL>t:NS PRJ::LJMINARY PLAT I'UBLJC IIEAR!lVG DAT£ March 17. 2009 Page 7 qf 12 c) Building Standards: The KC R-4 zone permits one residential structure per lot. Each of the proposed lots would support the construction of one detached unit. Building height in the KC R-4 zone is limited to 35 feet. The maximum impervious lot coverage in the KC R-4 zone is 55 percent. The building standards for proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Internal Circulation: The site is proposed to gain access from 162"d Ave SE, and urban neighborhood collector. The site would be served by SE 140'" Place, 163'' Avenue and SE 141" Place all urban minor access roads ending in a cul-de-sac. See further discussion, on pages 5 and 6, under Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation Parking: KC 21A.18.030 requires that single detached dwellings provide a minimum of 2 ofi~street parking spaces. As proposed, each lot would have adequate area to provide two off-street parking spaces. Compliance with the parking requirements will be verified at the time of building permit review. Natural Environment Topography: The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. The average slope of the site is approximately 20% and drains to the south. The applicant is not aware of the amount of grading that would happen as a result of the proposal. Soils: The soils on the site are classified as Alderwood series. Wetland & Streams: A wetland is located in the southwest comer of the property and is associated with a small intermittent stream. There is another isolated wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest comer of the site. The applicant submitted a Wetland/Stream Evaluation and Mitigation Plan, by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated November 19, 2004), delineating the wetlands and stream on site as well as classifying the wetlands as Class II and the stream as Class Ill according to the County's critical area rating system (KCC 21A.24, 2004). A secondary study/revised mitigation plan was submitted by the applicant, conducted by Chad Armour, LLC (dated May 16, 2007), in which the classification and delineation by 8-12 were affirmed. The Class II wetlands and Class III stream extend off-site into the unimproved right-of-way, 162"' Ave SE, at the southwest and northwest corner of the site. The wetland associated with the stream is a small forested wetland characterized by an overstory of red alder and cottonwood with salmonberry, lady fern, and manna grass in the understory. The stream channel is a narrow 12-inch gravel/soil bottom channel which appears to be intermittent with no fish use. The off-site wetland, located at the northwest comer, is a young forested wetland dominated by immature alder, salmonberry, and lady fem. Per the 2004 County critical area regulations a Class Ill stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream and requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The standard 50-foot buffer for the Class II wetland is the encumbering buffer, rendering the stream buffer immaterial to the development of the site. In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its buffer the applicant will be required to establish a Sensitive Areas Tract (SAT) over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. The applicant will also be required to clearly mark the extent of the SAT with signage and fencing. A mitigation measure, as part ofSEPA, was imposed requiring a covenant be placed on the tract restricting its separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. In addition a 15-foot building setback line (BSBL) is required from the edge of the SAT and shall be shown on the affected lots on all plans. City of Renton Community and EconomiG ·e{opment Depar/1!lrn/ Preliminat:i,' Report to the I /earing F:xaminer LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (Ki11g Cou11tv DDES File No. L04P0034) LIBERTY GARDENS ?RF.UM/NARY Pl.AT PUBLIC HEARING DATE March 17. 2009 Page 8 of fl d) The applicant proposes to improve 162"' Ave SE with half street improvements, thus causing impacts to the on~sitc wetlands, stream and associated buffers. The applicant indicates that approximately 2.387 square feet of wetland and 14,840 square feet of buffer would be affected as a result of the proposed improvement to 162"ct Ave SE. In addition a portion of the stream, in the amount of 30 linear feet, is proposed to be placed in a 48-inch culvert. A conceptual mitigation plan for the proposed impacts was submitted with the project application. If the applicant intends on altering the wetlands or stream, as part of an improvement to 162"' Ave SE, a detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from that alteration will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21 A.24 (2004 ), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. The mitigation plan shall be implemented and plantings installed prior to recording of the final plat. In order to ensure the success of the mitigation plan staff recommended, as a SEPA mitigation measure, that the applicant submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. After the approval of the final maintenance and monitoring plan, a performance surety must be provided to the City of Renton for the maintenance and monitoring period prior to the recording of the final plat. Staff also recommended, and the ERC adopted as a SEPA mitigation measure, that the applicant provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years. Vegetation: The project site is heavily wooded with 266 significant trees; a mixture of coniferous and broad-leafed trees native to the Pacific Northwest. Groundcover consists of Northwest native species including salal, swordfem and grasses. Wildlife: Small birds and mammals inhabit the site. Larger species may visit the site on occasion. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on or near the property. Community Assets Landscaping: Per KCC 21 A.16.050 street trees, for single family subdivisions, shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage along all public streets. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application that includes the installation of street trees spaced approximately 40 feet on center . The applicant is proposing to plant a total of 48 street trees on the site. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping within the proposed Drainage/Recreation Tract (Tract B), including: Douglas fir, flowering cherry, and dogwood trees: white rockrose, morning light silver grass and ceanothus shrubs; kim1ikinnick and lawn groundcovers. The proposal appears to comply with the landscaping requirements of the King County Code. A detailed landscape plan will be required to be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering plan approval. In addition to street trees the applicant is proposing to plant 109 trees (18 of the 109 trees are located in Tract B) to satisfy the tree retention requirements outlined in KCC 16.82.156 Significant Trees. The applicant submitted a Tree Inventory plan as part of the Preliminary Plat application. There arc approximately 266 trees on the site. The site consists of mostly deciduous upland forest that includes big leaf maple and red alder. Understory vegetation consists of a salmonberry, Indian plum, hazelnut, sword fem, salal and bracken fem. The applicant proposes to clear a majority of the site's existing trees and vegetation to accommodate grading and building site preparation. City ofRenron Communitv and Economic __ ·elopment Depaw11,·111 LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Report to the Hearing Ernminer LUA08-093, PP, ECF (King Cou11tv DDES File No. l04P0034) PUBl/C HEARING DATE March 17. 2009 Page') of 12 e) KCC 16.82.156 requires that the greater of: 10 trees per acre or 5% of the trees on site be retained. Of the 266 trees that are on site, 90 trees are required to be retained at the IO trees per acre retention rate. A tree inventory submitted by the applicant indicates 9 trees would be retained with three additional tree credits given for 3 retained trees located in close proximity to the critical area buffers on site; resulting in the retention of approximately 1.3 trees per acre. The applicant is proposing to plant a total of 109, three-inch caliper, replacement trees; which would meet the County tree retention requirements. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning project manager prior to engineering permit approval. Recreation: Per KCC 21 A.14 residential subdivisions, more than four units, developed at a density of eight units or less per acre, are required to provide 390 square feet of recreation space on-site. The 36 lot proposal would require 14,040 square feet (36 lots x 390 square feet) of recreation space. The applicant is proposing recreation space within Tract B, in the amount of 20,267 square feet; which meets the recreation space requirement. For 26-50 lot developments the applicant is also required to provide two or more of the facilities listed in KCC 21A.l4.190 in addition to a tot lot or children' splay area. The proposed recreation area includes a tot lot, sports field and sports court; complying with the recreation facilities requirement in the County Code. Adequacy of Public Facilities and Services Roads/Access: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way. No current improved access exists except nominally from 164'" Avenue SE. The property is located at approximately I 300 linear feet from the intersection of 162"d Ave SE and SE 136'" Place. The property is approximately 600 linear feet from SE 144'" Street on both l62"d and 164'" Avenues SE with the proposed entrance on l62"d Avenue located at about 1150 linear feet from centerline to centerline. High Accident Locations (HAL) have been identified as effected by this development. Due to the identified impacts and the distances listed above; staff recommended, as a SE!' A mitigation measure, the applicant provide two points of access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety. The improvement of 162'"1 J\ ve SE, from where it currently terminates near the 138xx block to SE 144'" St, was proposed by the applicant in order to provide secondary access. The applicant has entered into a three-party contract with other pending development proposals in the area (Cavalla, LUA08-097/DDES L06P0001 and Threadgill DOES L05P0026) in order to jointly improve the extension of 162"d Ave SE to SE 144'" St. Construction of an internal street that connects 162"'1 Ave SE to 164'" Ave SE would provide an alternative for secondary access. The applicant may opt to not improve the off-site extension of 162"<l Ave SE from the southwest corner of the site to 144'" Ave SE as long as secondary access is provided to the plat. In addition, all right-of-way frontages of the property abutting and impacted by the development are required to be constructed to comply with King County street standards for the full length of the property. As a condition of approval staff has recommended the applicant be required to provide an east/west road connection from 164'" Ave SE to 162"" Ave SE in order to create a highly connective grid system; thereby creating an impact to 164'" Ave SE. Therefore, staff also recommends as a condition of approval that both frontages, 162"d Ave SE and 164 11 ' Ave SE, for the full length of the property are required to be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162"d Avenue SE shall be designed and constructed to meet the urban neighborhood collector standard. City of Renton Community and F:conomic elopment Depar/111e111 LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY !'LAT PUBLIC Ht.ARING DA?£ A1arch 17. 2009 Preliminarv Report to the Hearing fa:arniner L/JA08-093, PP, ECF (Ki11g Cou11ry DDES File No. L04P0034) Page /Oof/2 As discussed earlier in the report: 162"d Ave SE is encumbered by two separate Class II wetlands and a Class III stream. The applicant may request a variance for modification to the frontage improvement requirements in order to avoid impacts to the critical areas located in the unimproved right of way. However, secondary access must still be provided. Per KCC 14.75 an appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee or Impact Fee shall be assessed and paid prior to plat recording. The proposed preliminary plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City· s street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends the applicant pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. 36 lots are expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per each lot. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00 (S75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots = $25,839.00) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. Surface Water: The site lies within the Lower Cedar sub-basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed. Currently runoff discharges into the Class III stream located at the southwest comer of the site from the n01iheast. Water then flows southwesterly to eastern side of 162"d Ave SE and disperses into a sheet flow south, within the unimproved l 62"d Ave SE right-of~ way. Further south, water passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet from the 162"' Ave SE and SE 144'1 ' Ave intersection. Water then enters a small detention pond also located within the unimproved 162"' Ave SE right-of-way. From the detention pond, water is conveyed across SE 144'" Street via an IS-inch culvert. Water then travels west within an 18-inch conveyance facility along the southern side of SE 144 1h St. The enclosed pipe system continues west, past 156'" Ave SE, continuing west eventually outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then turns south and outlets to the Cedar River. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from the proposed streets, sidewalks, homes, and lawns and covey into a proposed storm water vault located in Tract B in the southwestern portion of the site. The outfall of the proposed vault would be conveyed back into the stream channel before leaving the property along its natural drainage course. The applicant is proposing water qua! ity treatment and retention in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant submitted a Level Ill Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Ed McCarthy P.E., dated July 2, 2008. The report identifies several downstream problems and includes recommendations to mitigate for the proposed development's impacts of downstream flooding. A letter with additional recommended storm water mitigation was received March 11, 2008, from Ed McCarthy P.E. Due to potential downstream drainage problems a SEPA mitigation measure was imposed requiring the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow control-a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. In addition, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat approval. A Surface Water System Development charge is required for each new single-family lot. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Schools: The project site is served by schools in the Issaquah School District. It is anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students City uf Renton Communi(i' and Economic _ elopment Depunmc111 L!Bt'RTY 0ARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT PURI.IC Ht:ARING DATE March 17. 2009 Preliminary Repm'I to rlli' HC'aring Eraminer LUAOS-093, PP, £CF (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) Page II of/2 generated by this proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School and Liberty lligh School. KCC 21A.43.050 requires that an impact fee be assessed for each new lot in order to fund school system improvements to serve the new development within the proposed plat. In order to mitigate school impacts staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1- 160.D, to the City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $216,756.00 ($6,021.00 x 36 lots= $216,756.00) and is payable at the time of building permit approval. Water: The site is served by the Water District #90. There is an existing water main in 160'h Avenue SE, part of the Water District #90 system. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. The applicant will show, during engineering review, the location and distance of all existing fire hydrants within 300 feet of the site. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings, if not already in place. Sewer: The property is currently not served by a public sewer line. There is a City of Renton 15-inch sanitary sewer line at the intersection of 160"' Avenue SE and SE 144'" Street. A 12- inch diameter sewer line is in 160'" Avenue SE. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. A System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for any new development and will be charged with the construction permit. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of $344. 71 per lot. H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, Project File No. LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide an east/west road connection from 162"' Ave SE to 164'" Ave SE in order to create a highly connective road network. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187 as amended (1993 KCRS). 2. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan, depicting an east/west road connection from 162nd Ave SE to 164 11 ' Ave SE, which is also consistent with all preliminary plat review criteria. The revised plat plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Division and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to engineering plan approval. 3. Both frontages, 162nd Ave SE and 164'" Ave SE, for the full length of the property shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162nd Avenue SE shall be designed and constructed to meet the urban neighborhood collector standard. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning project manager prior to engineering permit approval. 5. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots= $25,839.00) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. City of Renton Community and Economic_ ~vefopment Depanmo11 UBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT PUBLIC IIEAR/N(i DATE March I 7, 2009 Preliminary Report w the I !earing Examina LUAOS-093, PP, £CF (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) I'age 12 of 12 6. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat recording. 7. The applicant shall pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160.D, to the City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $216,756.00 ($6,021.00 x 36 lots~ £216,756.00) and is payable prior to the recording of the final plat. EXPIRATION PERIODS: The Preliminary Plat approval will expire sixty (60) months from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. Department of Community ~ & Economic Development ~ Alex Pietsch, Administrator EXHIBIT 2 $ IT..: Legend l;::J Liberty Garden C:.J City Limits D RentcJn Par.::cls File Na·-,e --1 ·C~D G:S_prOJECtS\V,C''llty_maps\ mxds\pa,-::-2's_' '1'., · y;, ~ :· ,::;01 SO_liberty_garden mxd Liberty Garden Vicinity Map February 24, 2009 0 150 300 600 Feet 1:6,000 .. -·-----111,iaKl'.ll/PllfilOS 1/lLI ·~ ..... 1111<1/f ' 10 01:1e.a s 1U1 311:1.Lad 'Vi OI/IVO • , ; I I I j !!, i ~~=§H!! "' i ~ll .. ~-, s !5 i I ::i:i::i::i G I ,f 11 HI! f Ii I g hllii1 i,,, i ...... ud . "'°" N\>'1d OMJNY1d 3""0SON\fl N3YEIOV1d3!:I 331::U. .lN'VOl:ffNOIS OO'v' N0U .31,03U/30V""""' .... OiS l"9lld l ! I : I I I I 1 ! I , • w " ~ f@ ~ ~ ig ~ ~i C!j <C ; ~ f ! ~~ ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ < - ~. -- 0 ~-. ,C ii! ' ,ii ' '~ ' 861.86 VM 'S3NI~ S30 l.O 08(;0: S U8 31l:U.3d "ri 01/\'v'O ~~ r • so· EL~~-'! ,A l -_---;-,., ,, PAa..lMINARY GRADING AM) STORM DRAINAGE Pl.AN Cf' LIBERTY GARDENS A POATIOl'I OF THE SE t/4 OF SECTION 6 TOWN3HP 22 N. RANGE 5 E, W.M KING coum. WASHINGTON \i lj i I I~ 'ill ~;c~~~c£ !t~~~~;~~~--~~ :;~jxJ~~{ "I I ~ i" !!! ,., " C I 11 1c ~ tiU UI i~ " ,.}!,,,' ~/ J 7, ··--· ,,4,, ,. I n , t7 1. ;;,._,., /_r ._...,,,, h · 1 ( ,, ~ ft:· , . 11 •/t--•-. "' '·. / / ' II '. ): ;/ , I ', I 15_/ I,., ·1121 ·, · '"'!·· ~ /' '"I.· \ \1, . ~ ~~--~. ··1.,, .1: ! 1, I I I · • I 1 . ' 'l' ~ ' 14 .. ' .. ',(' '" .. ,,_ .. \ . . ')A\\.,,, _,/29.· . ,......~,, •t• -~- EXHIBIT 5 ~ ·-r d i . 14 C F:--.. .' .. L- ti. JJ ___;._,. -- ~--,"- l ""'""'°"""' i"!~,'r."'·""" , ·-·----- ... •. -...... ..,...,._~ ~-- !___.., :.. ~ '" ... t11 § y I ~ 1'!:.~ ~-~ I ,,,-;;_ ~;'!'_ -:fil,. Ji: 7~4£1@:i:£: iii i, ,,.I' '-·"' -·· ~· •' ~" --.,~ / <' -· OOlol'"(i'(O .. .,.,, __,' ........ ~""' .... TtPtCA1.. """""""'-..... ......, .... ""__/' ACCESS "TRACT SECTION ~"\.;~~,-_,..,_,, • ~~~J' •l•~N., m >-i 0 " @'" -:J_ R flj 0 ~"' > "'g c3 £ Cl) ~ I h I, ,1 ,1 l l i !1 :~I - ~ g ll ;hi! I ::::.!..!. • -iil! ! \ih1! ~I I h ~·~ ... ' f-----' "'"'~·· ,. 0 , -• I ,c I~ "'~f@ii?a.;.=,,,,,,w ~ .. "" . ./ 3 ; ~·-~ -..... -· 1_11_3, t:"""• ~ -'"-·-:;';;"';:;;:• ~ """-tlr ~ «< ,_/ / AL ON-81TE ;~~~'" ~~/// ~ ROAD SEC110N "'"'~ .,.., . .:..::;_,~"""""' _,/ -•~-• ~ .. ~'£/~ ,_ ! . Department of Community ~"I: 0 . :f:iit & Economic Development ~f Alex Pietsch. Administrator Legend L•t-en; '..Oarden EXHIBIT 6 Liberty Garden Aerial February 24. 2009 N 0 150 300 600 ~ ---ic::==::iFeet W 1 6,000 Department of Community ~ & Economic Development ~ Alex Pietsch, Administrator EXHIBIT 7 Legend 1;=1 Llber:y Garde,, C.J City Limits -Elevation F>le N2.,,·,e H ·.r:ED'G:s_projects\vicinity_maps\ mxds\paru-is '. c.c:..·."c:,:1 i '""·8..0150 _11berty_garden mxd Liberty Garden Tope Map February 26, 2009 0 75 150 300 Feet 1:3,250 EXHIBIT 8 East Renton Zoning 2004 Legend ~ Urban Growth Boundary 2004 ~Streets Q Parcels 0 Liberty Annexation A.rea lffJJ Incorporated Areas 2004 Zoning 2004 /:/:'. A-10-Agricultural, one DU per 10 acres .. A-35 -Agricultural, one DU per 35 acres • F-Forest ~ M-Mineral RA-2.5-Rural Area. one DU per 5 acres RA-5-Rural Area. one DU per 5 acres ifJ RA-10-Ruralkea, one DU per 10 acres UR -Urban Reserve, one DU per 5 acres R-1 -Residential, one DU per acre R--4 -Residential, 4 DU per acre R-6 -ResidentiaL 6 DU per acre R-8 -Residential, B DU per aae R-12-Residential, 12 DU per acre if' R-18 -Residential, 1 B DU per acre 4' R-24 -Residential, 24 DU per ai:re ~ R-48-Residential, 48 DU per acre ,if! NB -Neighborhood Business #fl CB -Community Business #fl RB -Regional Business 4' 0 -Office I -Industrial 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet DAl'"E: MONDAY, MARCH 9. 2009 2:26:20 PM M:\SHEUEY\MAPS\200903\20090309 _RN_ Z0NING04.MXD M:\~S\2.00903\WILSON5M_20090309_RN_ZONING04.PDF Wll50NSM Th< <llo<l1'0tlon lfl<luded on lhls map has t>een compiled tiy Ki,g County ,ta" tom , .. ,1111y or""""'"" ond ill ,u!ijo<t ro ch•ng• llilhou. oolico Kiig Co11r1ty ma!•• no ,.p<MOnt,lions o, """""""· "?"•OS or ifnpwl. as lo oocuracy. completen••~ ..,,.,_ or r,phlo 10 ttio .,.. or s"'11 ,nro,,...1,;n. i<.,,g county 1h11 nol bo loblo lor •"f gonora( or,odo( lndh"~. ,l'>Odento\ or a,noo,.-1 OOmagos lfl<ludO\g, but oot lmled ro. 10,t "'""""°' o< 1>'1 ?'(Ont, "''"~"ll h'om lhl! "'" or m....,.. ol tf>I nfcrm""°" o,nt,lr>e<I on this mop Any ,ale of this tnaµ or <lfcrmaliorl o,, 1hl$ mop ls p,Oh;i,,t«l ~eepl Oj' ""1tl<!n r,or=~on of Kin~Counfy CI'I March 2, 2009 Hans Korve David Petric 811 S 173'dCourt dmp, inc. 726.Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Des Moines, WA 98198 RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Appeal LUA LUA-08-093, PP, ECF, AAD Gentlemen: OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has received your appeal letter on the above referenced matter. Please be advised that the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. Ifthis office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Nancy Thompson Secretary to Hearing Examiner City of Renton Encl: Copy of Appeal Letter cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney ) Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services All Parties of Record ----l-05_5_S_o_ut_h_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_e_nt-on-,-W-a-sh_i_ngt._on_9_80_5_7---(4-2-5)_4_3_0--6-5-15 ____ ~ @ This p:;iper coma;ns 50°10 re,;:;ycled material. 30% post consumer AHE/\D OF THE CURVE dmp, inc. JAN O 6 2009 ~,yo RECEIVED I C, January 5, 2009 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY -MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 TELEPHONE: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 RE: LUA08-093 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal Dear Ms. Timmons: As you are aware from our recent conversations, the Applicant has requested that I file a SEPA appeal on his behalf, in accordance with RMC 4-8-110. Subsection E (3) (a) provides that appeals of environmental determinations may be taken to the Hearing Examiner by any person aggrieved, or affected by such determination. In reviewing the Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC), dated December 15, 2008 for the plat of Liberty Gardens, the Applicant and the project will be adversely affected by various findings and/or conditions described and recommended in that report. We therefore are APPEALING the Environmental determination and request that a Consolidated Hearing take place before the Renton Hearing Examiner at the time of the Preliminary Plat review. Substantive Errors in Fact or Law: As required by RMC 4-8-110 (A) (2), the following sections describe the various errors in fact or law that exist in the ERC report and the City record: 1. On various occasions and in various documents, the City of Renton has referred to Liberty Gardens as a 36 lot plat, submitted to King County in December of 2004. This project was in fact prepared and submitted to King County as a 38 lot Preliminary Plat application. Over the last 4 years, the project has undergone extensive review and alteration as part of the normal review process. The Applicant wishes to reserve his right to a 38 lot plat, or at least 37 lots, and would like the record to reflect his correct vested lot count. t_c.,~ ~f..A.h,..,.....' Wc\~ ~~,Dw~ ---------------------~~,()...,...., Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal ~ lJ~ l CJ;.us,.. 11:~~\~(LJ The City of Renton has the opportunity to reverse previous denials made by King County of Applicant's proposal to vacate portions of adjacent 1641h Ave right-of-way (see attachment DMP, Inc Letter Proposal to vacate a portion of 162"d and 154th Ave SE, dated May 10, 2005). The Applicant's request to vacate a portion of 1641h Ave included design for a direct entrance to the adjacent King County Park at the southwest corner of Liberty Gardens. The attached drawing depicts a 5' sidewalk on the east, plus two 10' lanes, with the remaining 5' for fencing/plantings. The existing 1 O' wide student path to Liberty HS would be relocated to the remaining 15' if the current 1641h ROW. This design provided better alignment of the park access with the existing improvements at the end of the 154th Ave Cud-de-sac. We have also requested that Staff alter the Environmental Determination to reflect the original lot count. The overall site plan, circulation system and utility design will be unaffected by this alteration. The only notable impacts will be to traffic, school and emergency services. These impacts are addressed through the imposition of impact fees. We ask that the Examiner alter the record to reflect the original lot count or at least the possible 37 lot configuration, and furthermore request that the Environmental Determination also be altered to consider the full impacts of the total possible lot count. 2. RCW 43.21C.240 prohibits a Municipality from imposing SEPA conditions for those project impacts that are already adequately addressed under the vested development regulations. Furthermore, Subsection (4) A states that a development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the Municipality, through the planning and environmental review process under Chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and: (b) The legislative body of the Municipality has designated as acceptable certain levels of service or development standards required or allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW. Under these provisions, the Applicant objects to the proposed mitigation measures described under Part Two of the ERC Report. Subsection B: 1. The City has required compliance with the 2001 DOE storm water manual in preparation of the Temporary Erosion Control Plan. The Application is vested to the King County 1998 SWDM. This vested document established the need for, and the regulation of, Erosion Control Plans. Compliance with the applicable manual is mandatory under the vested development standards and no unique Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 2 adverse environmental impact has been identified to justify the modification of the adopted standards. We ask that the condition be stricken from the City recommendation. 2. The City has required the imposition of a restrictive covenant restricting the separate sale of all sensitive area tracts. There is no indication that this provision is required under the vested development regulations and no unique significant adverse environmental impact has been identified to justify the condition. We ask that it be removed. 3. The City has required a 5-year monitoring and maintenance plan be established for the wetland mitigation areas. Under the King County policies in place at the time of vesting, the project would have a 3-year maintainance period. This 3-year monitoring plan is discussed in both the original B-12 as well as the subsequent Chad Armour wetland reports. The County moved to the longer 5-year monitoring with the recent adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance. We ask that the Examiner modify the condition to reflect the vested provisions of the King County Code. 4. The City has required a Maintenance Surety Device for the proposed wetland and buffer mitigation improvments. The language in the report is unclear. It seems to leave out bonding as an option, which is allowed under County Code. We ask that this report language be modified to more clearly reflect the allowance of Performance and Maintenance bonds in accordance with KCC 27 A. We ask that the condition be removed. The Applicant is already subject to the vested King County code which specifies bonding requirements. 5. The City of Renton has required the imposition of Level 3 flow control under the 2005 King County Manual as a SEPA condition. As stated earlier, this application was vested in December of 2004. This is prior to adoption of the noted 2005 Storm Water Manual. This application is subject to the 1998 KCSWDM. (note the typo listed in the ERC report which refers to the 1993 manual) We ask that the Examiner correct the record to reflect the appropriate vested document. It is also inappropriate to specify a level of flow control in advance of the full engineering review. Under the vested storm water manual, there are multiple engineering options to address the current drainage issues. We do not argue the need for additional flow control, we only disagree with the use of a non- vested document and the inclusion of the issue as a SEPA condition when the subject is fully covered in the vested Storm Water Manual.. Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 3 6. The City has required that the Applicant provide secondary access to avoid impacts to known high accident locations to the north. A similar development condition has been placed on a nearby subdivision, and will likely be placed on the adjacent plat of Cavalla, to the North. The Applicant is not disputing this condition. The Applicant's original proposal was to improve 162"d Ave SE, in accordance with the adopted King Co. Road Standards. The Applicant's proposal has never included improvement or access to 1641 h Ave SE. While the Applicant appreciates the City's flexibility in alowing the Applicant to choose either option, he does object to the apparent addition of unrelated frontage improvements. The City has added a condition to improve frontage along 1641h Ave SE even if the Applicant provides the required secondary access along the 162"d Ave coridoor. This addition is contradictory to the prepared King County Staff report and is not supported by the adopted standards. In its proposed condition, the City correctly quoted KCRS 1.03 to say that" land development abutting and impacting existing roads shall improve the frontage". What Staff neglected to do was correctly film.!y the provision. Under the current proposal, Liberty Gardens is not impacting 1641h Ave SE and therefore should not be required to improve it. 1641h Ave SE is an unimproved ROW adjacent to a large parcel of unimproved land owned by the King County Parks Department. The north end of the unimproved ROW terminates at home plate for the Liberty High School Baseball Diamond. The south end connects to a segment of unimproved ROW beyond an existing cul-de-sac. An additional segment of the unimproved 1641h ROW, adjacent to the plat of Cavalla, was previously vacated by King County. This vacation insures that 1641h Ave SE will not be extended in the future. It cannot reasonably be indicated that the Liberty Gardens proposal has any impact on 154th Ave SE in its current form. As discussed earlier, under RCW 43.21 C.240 it is inappropriate for the City to recommend a SEPA condition for those project impacts that are already adequately addressed under the vested development regulations. The 1993 KC Road Standards are very clear. The City has not identified a unique significant adverse environmental impact that would justify a deviation from the adopted code. We ask that this condition be removed. Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 4 Summary: In acordance with RMC 4-8-110 we ask that the Hearing Examiner give our issues due consideration and grant the requested modifications as described above. We contend that under RCW 43.21C.240, it is inappropriate for the City to recommend a SEPA condition for those project impacts that are already adequately addressed under the vested development regulations. Under this provision, many of the recommended SEPA conditions are inappropriate and unsupported by the findings of the Environ ental Review Committee Report. Hans Korve-dmp, inc Designated Engineer for Plat Hearing ~ David Petrie, Developer Attachment: A. Barghausen -Park Access Exhibit B. Renton -Liberty Annexation Informational Letter C. Renton -Liberty Annexation Map D. DMP -2005 Vacation request letter Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal 5 dmp, inc. :-1! DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. 162"d Ave SE Option AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 TELEPHONE: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 The Applicant hereby affirms his intent to follow the original design for Secondary access to the Plat of Liberty Gardens as negotiated with King County. This original design for the 162nd Ave Extension, was submitted to the King County Hearing Examiner under the scheduled July 17, 2008 Plat Hearing; and under the Terms and Conditions of the Liberty Annexation to abide by previous approvals/agreements/codes of ODES Staff. The Applicant has no interest in altering the project to take any access from 154th Ave SE and will in no way participare in any future improvement of that right-of-way. History of 162"d Ave Extension and Area Storm Water Issues The Applicant has expended considerable time and cost to perfect the 162"d Ave Extension option while workign closly with King County Staff to address several significant design issues. In researching the cause of the flooding of the Gragg, Chinn, Gammell properties (Appellants of the original Libert Garden SEPA), with resulting deluge of storm water down the west side of the 162"d Ave SE corridor, the root cause was discovered to be an illegal diversion (1975) of storm water by Leroy Nabor (deceased), located 900' northwest of the SW corner of the Liberty Gardens Plat. Mr. Nabor owned a septic tank installation company and used his construction equipment to direct storm water on the west side of 1601h Ave SE to the east-side. Since the area was sparsely settled, this illegal act went undetected for decades. As a result. all the storm water from five plats northward (Hamilton Place. Evendell. Liberty Grove I and II, and Nichols Place)-fronting the1601h Ave- corridor. is now diverted east to the 162"a Ave corridor. The flow path is across the Smith Property (Parcel 1457500110); thence through a 24" culvert along the inside of the Chinn and Gragg north property line; thence down the 162nd Ave right-of-way to 1441h Street. In 1979, this storm water flooded the swimming pool of a property on the south side of 144th Street. As a means to quiet the complainant, King County Roads dug a 140' x 40' x 3' pond directly in the 162"d Ave right-of- way, just north of 144th Street. Approximately 80% of the water flowing westward along the 144th Street culverts is due to this illegal diversion. This problem can be significantly mitigated by activating a now inactive existing culvert system along 1601h Ave. The right-of-away north of SE 142"d Place, is now under the purview of Renton through the Liberty Annexation; the remainder connecting to 144th Street under the purview of King County. King County Sensitive Areas Staff originally required the Applicant to treat this storm water as a regulated stream, left in its eroded state as a result of storms that overtopped the temporary pond, including the culvert on the north side of 144th Street. This compromised the integrity of the future roadway within the 162"d Ave Extension. Negotiations with Steve Bottheim and Nick Gillen (Environmental), Kris Langley (Traffic), and Bruce Whittaker (Drainage) eventually allowed the Applicant to tight-line this storm water just before it commingles with the Sensative Area (SA) stream crossing the swale at the southwest corner of the Liberty Gardens Plat. Since that time, the Applicant has alocated considerable resources to achieving an approved preliminary design to meet the projects as well as the neighborhoods needs. History of I6rd Ave Extension and Area Storm Water Issues 2 1'\U.cn;nrnenc -A arghausen -Park Access Exhib. ') I ~; 11 V I '! ~; ' 1fo,1 \:> • i ' \:> ' ~ L .. iS •p1 , el ') '·1 ; . ill \ ,, !;>· ! " 1: \:> ") ,<,;;Y 0 .Q··~·.·.~·A···. ··.·.· .. ·•.·.·.· .. · .. ;,e.·.\ • .a • j""·····~ &lNi'f9 Attachment -B Renton -Libe1 ~nnexation Informational Letter CIT'!' OF RENTON -RESIDENT INFORIVIATJON Liberty Annexation ,At10ufA11ncxation .·.. .. . •· . .. . . ... , . .. . . . •· ..... · . . • .·.· .· . . · .... • Renton is pleased to W!!lcome residents itrtheLiherly Annexation area to tlle city. '.fhe nnn12xatjon will be e!1:ective.-0n • ; <August )l,2()08 As a re~nU;the ~a will now receive local govenm1ent serVieesfrom the City ofRetiton i.nsteatiof;!!{:ilig. County. OnAugusi l 1th. proper!ies andresponsibilities for service transfer from King Ci:Ji.tntyJo i~CJityofRetltOtLfur . streets, parks, library, and police. Renton 's :Mayor and City Council will be your electe<l. eit,iofficl~is, You may wmider what services will change and wbatwill stay the same. Expect to see ch!!llgcs in dirt.'Cl local g(lvcn1rnt:11t service!,, . including police response, parks and recreation, street maintenance, land use permits and pllin11111g, and libtafy s#Yices . . Most residents will see a slight decline in the overall locnl taxes they pay today. Residents will see Jmsyh.ange in sebool distJicl bmrndarics, water and seWC( service, fire ant! emergency services or King (,onnty Metro busje'rvlce: BACKGROUND The I 99.73 acre Liberty A1111exation is located in the City's East Renton Plateau area. ·r1ic original W%Notice offotenC to Annex petition was submitted in May 2007. On July 9, 2007, the City CounciJ met with proponents and accepted the proposed annexation subject to boundary expansion lo the west to include the Highlands Estates mrhdivision. Annexation proponents submitted the 60% Direct Petition to Annex 011 Oclobcr 25, 2007. A public hearing was held on January 28, 2008. The petition was approved by the Boundary Re,icw Board for King County effective May 29, 2008. At tlie regular City Council meeting of May 14, 2008, Council adnplcd the Onlimmcc effectuating the annexation asof Au1:,'llst J 1, 2008. POLICE JVhm wil/ lwppcn ,vith police services? As al\vay~. pk<L"ll' call 9-! -1 in the ca;:.-c 1Jf emergency or k>. report any susp.icimF; activity. The Remon Police Depart,m,nt will respond 10 calh in your area starting June l l lh. Renton.has expandedjt;, patrol districts, each staffed with one officer 24 bout's a day. Average respnnse time to highest priority calls iabo11t:U _i11inutcs. FIRE & EMI{RGENCY SERVICES llas annexation ajfected}lre arule111ergency§krl'iccs·' Rc,idetiis ,vill sec ho. change in fir&tind services. Response time and ser\/iccs wij! be the same as prior to. annexatiotL LIBRARms Can [ keep iising the Ki11gCountylibrarie$7 Why isn '/ R,·111011 par1 i!( King Co,mly Lib,wy6'J,"·tmi?l'hePwo Jibraty · systems have a long,standing reciprocal borrowing agreement that provides fuU borrowil.ig privi!et1es.athoth sj,stei11s' .. libraries for all residL'll!S. the City of Renton bas provided itidependentlibrary services to dty reslde,m, froniits two branch libraries since KlngCounty LJbm.rySystcm (KCLS ), a separate library district, wns f?hned •. Bol:hlJhr,uy systym,s .. have a conu:nluncntlo provide tl1e Hllra.ry servkes that residents value. Two studie.~1werc ilegurt iµ ,200? to plan foFthe .·< future of R¢ntonl)braries. A crOSS:tise ~\~d}',!lt:tcnnincd there was an imbalunce in!Ji.enumb~f ofili!tJpi'.t:l,eckiliq.(Jnrfroii1,.>.#: KCLS by Renton residents.versus t:µe~µmoer:i:hccked out fromRe:ntoi1 libraries by KC):,S 1'>atro11S. !lie ~~9i;Jd study is . ' Renton ·s library master plannillg process, expected to be completed in 2008 that \Vil! set.U1e course fordiij fuhtre of · · Retiton libraries. · · . PARKS & RECREATION What has changed about J)llrks a11drecreaifrm sen ices'? Newly annexed residehts now qualify for low~, rnsidcli! recreation fees. No parks will transfer to the city with annexation, · · · BUILDING PER.1\HTS ,Wnai can I expectreg1inli11g e.ri.i~iJig landusdpcnnits, building pennits; and projects under cormtuclim1? The Cit:itof . Renton will honor subdivisions short lat and other ro· ects .that have vested under Kin, Cciunt dcvelo rii.ent stanggrds ... King Co. unty wif. coi1tinue.thc .. p'errnit ;;~.,v.,11. id .Rtoj~cl insp.ec.·tions th.at were .m.1 mitled.pfi.· or tQ at111exatloa, . · . ------" . ;g -, I II i)f~'Wf&C'Jt f L~ . ·,.;,· . f t ·t ff Q ~ F" ,. '.!&,'. -CJ' ,t.,. • ZONING . . r, •Jfow ivili 1he area be zonedj<,r landuse? The city ha, reviewed King County z011ing in the are,1 to determine how to •· -· · · <amend Renton's Comi)rchensive Plan to create zurting for ycmr area. Search ~ww.rcnt0.n'.ll:1!,gov to review the adopted r::r t;:: zoning for your property, ,,,. ... I{ COUE COM.PLIANC.E .. . ... 1.·.".• Wlticlt R,!I'ntancades are differw11? The city has a team of staff to educate and support residents tqq,rnply "'\th citycodt( , i!.1~' ,·• _ Some.of the lllost CQlrtmo1nesidenti11l oode yiolal ions include 11arbage accumufotio11,Ji/11kyehi<ilcs on !1rivale property, .•. i • I '/oo_n&truction.orgrading "'ithQuta pen11it,U11S~11rcd vaca11t buildings, lmv,haogingtri::e braue\ie~l!ni'\)iingovlir~idewalfi ,· fi; >'. Of stx~-eis, il\egal business operatioi1, over-heiglll fences, and illegal sigiis mi 11rivat¢ptope11y. l'lfl:l C!'l(\t,regulat\Oll$ are ,~ C':sl!rnlurto King County codes fffh?~T tj x';\DDRESS CHANGES . _ ·. . . . • .. . .... -•. •.--.. _ ............ . [j.,: '.'TI'i/l_myaddress change? Some ~ddr:esses in newly annexed .ircas will not c~111ge,)(y-0urs hijppen,\\10,.b?9nethardoes !tf+.,F.: _requnce an address change, you will hnd enclosed a separate letter :from the City not1fymgyo11 aud pro:t:tdlil!!;the · It· _,raddr-,sslng infonnation. · iii!~;• (t,,_ iF" :,; NEIGUBORfIOOU PROGRAM :fiow can/ny n,,ighborhood become pan qf tft,, 1/('ll/on Ncighbod10od Pmgram?The city reeognizes.imd supports· i;1eigbborhoods through its Ncighhorl1ood Progmm. The progranihelps citizens make i111pmven1ct1ts through· .. neighborbo,ld grants, and facilitates ncighlwrhood ptrnics. bringing neighb01-s together for food and fun,Jntcres,ted groups ·can 01·ganize a neighborhood association and apply to be a recognized neighborhood. · ~E 'I'.; 't .. l-X·. •Si FEE CHANGES WITH ANNEXATION ,;t.:,; :,-... 14\' ·: f1'11t1-t kinds (fchanges ltm•e there hcen toft!cs and /rt,\cs.·1 Tax.cs for1hc average resident should he:ahom tht' sanli;·or l6wert but r~sidcnts will r:1y taxes in diffCrt'lH v.iay;,; than b,.:--!tlfe anni.:xat-ion. Colicttion of city property.taxc.5 1 sales :taxes, and utility lax.es w111 begin alter anncxMion. Busin~ss ownt:r~ arc now responsihlt:' for fo:ensi11g theirbu~iness with th~ :e!i.y, and residents arc respousiblc to pay the city's surfocc, water ulilily fees. · \BlJS1N1':Ss LICENSES What can busines,, owners expect1 Anyone co11duct111g business in the City ofRentop, il\bl'1djtifl!l:iOliiCiJilset.f business; is no;vre.quired to apply for a business license. The lee is base,! on the 11umher of cti1ploye~sI191;iii:ipii11yhl)~. withinthe •t:Renton city limits. .. J!ETLICENSES ', ....... -. •, .... \ . . . lJo l.nRe,{tolicense mypets? Yes. Just us in King County, Remon requires licenses fol'!d,ogs ~nil ~at:, everJ· tw,oyem:s ... (.!. c,J•. ;]'lie i}ity of Renton 's FinaneeDepartment can heir with ym,r nexl renewal. · · · tit]~:::ltJ_~->-. ; ' _.: :. ' ' ' ,li[ji;l$'I!JRJ<'ACE WATER '·• ·Jiowlfoe:; Renlo~J11mwge.su1fi,ce wa1erdete11tiu11 ponds' The City ofl{enlo11wiU beJesponslhl!}/uf ti:iairltql!ling ting surface water detention ponds th~t had peen owned, maitltained or operated 1,yKillg C:oty\t · • ~!!bll<ifights, ay. Re11ton l'{ill send out s~p.i.\fi\le quarter!y billings to property owners. In mqst.ipsfances; ' ·· ol'Retl!rul.$llffi:u;~ · r tales are lp\~e.rthan King Cotil)ty's. ·-· · '.c. ; Ql\flt S~:CURITY SYSTEMS fo City of Renton requires by ordinance the registration of all security systems. Download an J~pllc6u01fframtheCity •;:t:.• '•'website, and send it in to the Police Departn,,;mt within 30 days of aMexation or installation to alleviatt;:!~ny late fees.· ·',:: ·, There is no c-0sl for the registration. ·· · ; ,:>;"'; GARBAGE SERVJCI, Your current solid waste han.lcr will continue t<) provide service for the next seven ,Will begin garbage eoUcc!ion in your neighborhood. AJ&.achment -C 111,ton _ Liberty Annexation Map 0 c u C :, 0 en D l l dmp, inc. D ' -2005 Vacation request letter (FORMERLY DALEY ENGINEERING CO.) -----------------BE -DBE ••• DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. May 10, 2005 ENGINEERING-PLANNING-SURVEYING 726 Aubum Way North Aubum, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 "-' = = Clerk of the Council -Road Vacation Room 1039 KC Courthouse ·.:r: ~} c.n ?J :JC 516 Third Ave. ;to rn --< C::o zr 0 Seattle, WA 98104 ,.--, rn RE: Proposal to vacate a portion of 162nd and 164th Ave. SE -<.?J 7-,, :,;,, < :::i:: Dear Council Members: 0 ---c: :r. C, S' .. N N On behalf of my client, we are requesting a partial vacation of 162"d and 164th Ave. SE in unincorporated King County. This vacation request is being submitted in conjunction with the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat (L04P0034). Liberty Gardens is a proposed 38 lot preliminary plat in the R-4 zone. It is our position that each of the requested_ rights-of-way (ROW) serves no useful purpose, or would cause significant environmental impact if developed. 164th Ave. SE -We are requesting that the County vacate an undeveloped 30' wide segment of ROW that extends approximately 655 feet along the eastern boundary of the subject property. This portion of 164th terminates at the southwest comer of Liberty High School. The property to the east is King County owned park land. Previous discussions with County Staff have indicated a desire to provide pedestrian access, through the park property, to the High School for children living south of Liberty Gardens. To accommodate this desire, the Applicant is willing to construct a 1 O' paved path along the west edge of the County Park Land, connecting to Liberty High School. This improved path would eliminate any need for retaining the remaining portion of 16411, Ave. SE for pedestrian purposes. Liberty Garden will construct two internal pedestrian connections to the new walking path to provide additional connectivity from the west. It would appear that the east side of 164th has already been vacated and become part of the Park property and that the northern extent was vacated as part of the adjacent Dickenson Plat. 162nd Ave. SE -We are also requesting that the County vacate an undeveloped, 30' wide, segment of ROW that extends approximately 490 feet along the western boundary of the subject property. This portion of 162"d crosses an existing Class Ill stream, and an associated Class II wetland as it proceeds south. Beyond the subject property, the undeveloped ROW proceeds down a significant hill. Both of these environmental features make further development of 162nd Ave SE. problematic and Staff from the environmental Section of DOES have expressed concern over.the impacts. The development of an east- west connector street, in conjunction with future development, between 160th and 162"d Ave. r:, ~, ',--/ SE would provide adequate connectivity for the area and would have a far less intrusive impact on the environment. The portion of 16;tro Ave. SE that is proposed to remain as ROW will be developed to provide public access to Liberty Gardens. At this time, several additional developments are proposed north of the Liberty Garden subdivision and will likely be responsible for development of the northern reaches of 162nd Ave. SE, beyond the Liberty Gardens development. Compensation -In accord with 14.40.020, the Applicant is prepared to compensate King County, under a Class "C" Road Vacation regulations, and pay 50% of the appraised value for the property. Under KCC 14.40.050, the Council shall place all Class "C" vacation funds towards the acquisition of open space. Section 14.40.020 (E) allows the Council to waive all or a portion of the required compensation if it benefits King County to do so. Under those conditions, the Applicant would be willing to provide recreational improvements within the . adjoining King County park property in an amount equal to the value of the requested Class "C" road vacation. In exchange, King County would waive that portion of the required compensation for the requested vacation under 14.40.020 (E). We feel that this arrangement will greatly benefit both the applicant as well as the neighborhood by allowing for the improvement of an existing county recourse at a time when County Parks are experiencing severe cutbacks. Please see the attached Vacation Exhibit. We hope that this proposal will meet with your approval and look forward to presenting our case at the Public Hearing If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 333-2200. ~~:· ;/1"---~~~~~ Hans Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. @ King County Home News 4141%34¥ Comments Search he infonnation Included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a 11ariety of sources and Is subject to change without notice. ng County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, time1lneS$, or rights to the use of such nformation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages inducting, but not limited to, ost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this·map. Any sale of this map or information on is map is rohibited except by written rmission of Kin Coun King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Clie... 4/13/2005 CITY OF RE!',TON ~y ~~~ City Clerk Division ·~ + 1055 South Grady Way ~-~ Renton, WA 98057 ?01\f'to 425-430-6510 D Cash c§J'Check No. d I l ] Description: Funds Received From: c~""--._ , \ Name \ );;,,,.,, l:, C \ Address y I/ '::;, City/Zip ,.. \ . -., ' ' ' 't·· ·,," ~.5"..." _,) \ \ '-~· \ ''-• .l.._' • , • r D Copy Fee ~Appeal Fee Receipt .. r; ~ \~ "··· 1277 Date l c:,--C-8 D Notary Service 0-------~-- \ I 1.-. \ h,=--~ ... A>~ :'= -·-·-... c~J:,r \. ....... -, ,...> \ ,I Amount $ J ,; - \ \·-~ -,.,1-_ (. City\'lta'Jt Signature (\ -\ ~ \ \~ STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on December 20, 2008. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $126.00. ', ~#~ Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 24th day of December, 2008. ''''""""'' ~,,, ~SEG 11 '1, ~ <:;/r'' ,,,\\\\\\111,, ,,, : ..l. .$'; f..X.PIR/111, 'l; = :t-::-""...,o d' ,,, ~ ~ for the State of Washington, Residiij ,.:. f; ~.-11. Y' \ i ~ .,,. <x: :::-::1 z • u .. C) ,,,,,. ~ '.:".. ~~ ,,. ~ :::E 2 ~ 1 '1,8) p\)41> n..' ff .:;::, :: ~ ,,, ,_.J.:: ..... = ~ ,,,,, , 0" ,,.;:-~ ~ E ,,, '8 11,\\\\"'''~ ~ ~ .:: 11111 7",qTE of ,,,<:- 1111\\\\\\"''" N{Jl1CEOF ENVIRONMENTAL DE1ERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIT1EE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Conunittee has re.issued a Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUA08-093, ECF, PP location: Southeast of 162nd Ave SE and SE 140th St. Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.95 ac site into 36 lots and a drainage tract. The project site is located in the City's R-4 du/ac zone however it is vested to the R-4 zoning requirements in King County. Proposed access would be provided via 3 new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. The site comains a Class III stream and Class II wetland. Project requires Preliminary Plat and SEPA Review. Appeals of the environmental detennination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, I 055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office., (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on January 13, 2009 at 9:00 AM to consider the Preliminary Plat. If lhe Environmental Detenninarion is appealed, the appe.al will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in the Renton Reporter on December 20, 2008. #163144. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Prellmlnary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOB-093, ECF, PP LOCATION: Southnst ol 16t" Avenue SE and SE 1-40"' Stntet DESCRIPTION: The applican1 submitad an applli;atlon with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental \SEPA) Review •nd Preliminary Pllll 1pproval fOt lha aubdlvlalon of an 8.96 acre parcel Into 36 . lots for Iha eventual developmtnt of alngla famlly r .. ldencff, With tracts for l'IHlreatlon, etormwater, Joint use drivewaya end eenalllYe artiM, The project site Is lo&at111d within the City'• Rnldent111I., \R"4) dwelling units per acre zoning dHlgnatlon; howev.,, the project la vestt1d to King County's R-4 zoning dealgnatlon's development r,:igulatlon,. Thi propoHd danalty would ba epproxlmll!&ly 4 dwelling units p,:ir groe,aacre. The proposed lots would "*'nge in alD rrom approxlmat,ly 5,900 squre Ifft In al'ff to 9,J.50 aquere Ifft. Access to the lots would be provided via thr" new Internal ct.ad end 1tnet11 ,xtended frl:Hn 162nd Ave SE. A Claff II w..11.and and .:i Class Ill strNm ,..., located In the aOlllhwnt comer of the prop11rty. Th, $\lbject property wa1 ann111~ed to 1he City ol Renton on August 11, 2008. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of thl tnvlronmental determination must be 11100 in writing on or befo"' 5:00 PM on January 5, 1009. ApPffls 11'1\1$1 bo flied In writing together wilh the requir<:td $75.00 appllcatlon lfl with: Hearing Examiner, Clly of Rtinton, 1055 South Grady Wey, Renton, WA 98057. AppHI• to tha Examiner are governed by City or Renton Munk:lpal Codi Section 4-8-110.8. Additional Information regarding tha appeal proceu may bo obtained lrom 1M Renton City Clerk'• Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL. 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON. ON JANUARY 13, 2009 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERM!NATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING ~'l'l'!,l"''•c \:.,,.,~'.l~ .. : f""·J'''_·. ,~-I ~,....,_-, "'-. I"~~-'!'•. ~i~-· ' ~"'..r" ,,-,·, :.~' ; 11F\ ''I' , FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Plea" Include the project NUMBER when calNng for proper ft~ Identification. CERTIFICATION I, fhJ.R/j; tMfgcrf , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in '._-=3._ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: /;>...-{',-08> ~~--~~--~--- /~'2,. ~ ,,·,'-'''':);\'.:,':1,,1 ..... . .-',.. " j.,. : -· SIGNED: ~ .c::-. ,, ·>'')/..<111 =-,} ' .. 'i/ ;.(\ 11 -.. . ·. ' ,, ,, '/, ·-~, . ·,~Jl1?"'l -;j__:: 1: A TI'EST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in -'~~•;!loctd!!,d..!,,!!.PL_,, on the ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-093, ECF, PP LOCATION: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 140m Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 • lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential~ 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per grossacre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet In area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new Internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located In the southwest comer of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-41·110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JANUARY 13, 2009 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. r11_· ~""It:'! 1.,., ,.,~,1"it' ... ~-~~; .:.J ~, ·• . I , : .:.. ~. ,,1i....t1'1 l .. --.,-;,'."~; ..:. Jl l~lflt .a I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. ~~,<, CIT ~ OF RENTON + >+-+ Department of Community and Economic Development ..a ' j'.l-'? Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ?:;:'>N'fO'/" ----------"'""-'""'"" ""--------------- December 17, 2008 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUAOS-093, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Potter: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, !055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on January 13, 2009 at 9:00 AM to consider the Preliminary Plat. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at ( 425) 430-7219. j;;J::=mittec Associate Planner Enclosure cc: See Attached/ Owner/Applicant/Party(ies) of Record -------------~ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 @ Thispape1; , ._, -led materiai. 30% post c;r,r:sumer AHEAD OF THJ,. r.i'RVI•: .._,~Y o CIT OF RENTON 0~~' + >+-+ uepartment of Community and Economic Development j:J '"' ~ Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ?;_>1'\T'tOl)'---------·-·M•·"''··----------------- December I 7, 2008 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 15, 2008: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOS-093, ECF, PP LOCATION: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 140" Street DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.95 ac site Into 36 lots and a drainage tract. The project site Is located in the City's R-4 du/ac zone however it is vested to the R-4 zoning requirements In Klug County. Proposed access would be provided via 3 new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. The site contains a Class DI stream and Class II wetland. Project requires Preliminary Plat and SEPA Review. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1055 South Grady Way -Renton. Washington 98057 {:+:) This oaper c,,,,,, -· i material. 30% oostconsumer -~ --RENTON ,~IIEAD OF THE ClJR\'E CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUAOB-093, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens PreliminarY Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and PreliminarY Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per grossacre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162"" Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE & SE 140"' Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant will be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. 3. Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities. The boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete. 4. Building and other structures shall be setback a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers. 5. A detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from any alterations to critical areas will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. 6. The applicant will be required to improve the street frontage along 1641h Ave SE in addition to 162"d Ave SE to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Water: 1. All fire hydrants installed or serving this subdivision are required to be fitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 2. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. Sanitary Sewer: 1. A System Development Charge (SOC) per lot is required for any new development and will be charged with the construction permit. 2. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of $344.71 per lot. 3. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. Surface Water: 1. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County surface water design manual. The preliminary drainage report (TIR) submitted with the project Environmental Review has addresses requirements for detention and water quality per the 1990 KCSWM, and used the 1998 KCSWDM modeling (KCRTS model) to design detention and water quality facilities. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SOC) per lot is required for this site. Transportation: 1. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel (162"0 Ave SE and 164'h Ave SE) and on the interior streets in accordance with the King County Road Standards (1993). 2. Two points of access are required for this development due to the one-way distance from the nearest point of public access. 3. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of2 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NUMBER: LUAOS-093, ECF, PP APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per grossacre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162"' Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE & SE 140'" Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services December 20, 2008 December 15, 2008 . . David Daniels, Administrator / · Fire & Emergency Services )R),5/ u8 Date 12/6/QB Dati I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE December 15, 2008 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, CED Planning Manager Meeting Date: Monday,December15,2008 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (Timmons) LUAOS-093, ECF, PP Location: Southeast of 162"• Avenue SE and SE 1401" Street. The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 • lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential • 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per grossacre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162"• Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director® D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Seivices Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner C. Duffy, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director® L. Warren, City Attorney ® ERG REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Owner: Applicant: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Cny of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT December 15, 2008 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat David Petrie, 811 S 273rd Court, Des Moines, WA 98198 Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 LUA08-093, ECF, PP (King County DOES File No. L04P0034) Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per grossacre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from l 62"d Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class lll stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Southeast of l 62"d A venue SE and SE 1401h Street 8.95 acres Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERG Report 08-093 City of Renton Department of Car LIBERTY GARDENS PRELI!'. Report of December 15, 2008 nity & Economic Development ~YPLAT I PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 'BACKGROUND ,.... vironmental Review Committee Report LUAOS-093,ECF, PP Page 2 of7 The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC ODES) for review on December 29, 2004. On June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold determination, Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), was issued (attached). An appeal of the SEPA determination was filed by Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ("CARE"), on July 7, 2008. As required by state law, the hearing for this appeal was combined with the hearing on the preliminary plat application and scheduled to be heard on July 17, 2008 before the King County Hearing Examiner. Before this matter could be heard, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal and the application for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC ODES) on June 20, 2008. ERC adopted KC DOES' threshold determination solely to comply with state law provisions to hold only one open record hearing to hear the preliminary plat and all appeals; and to initiate a new appeal period. During the new appeal period, a second joint appeal of the SEP A determination was filed by 7 individuals who live in the vicinity of the property, on October 22, 2008. During the process of preparing for the appeal, City Staff discovered that the situation and circumstances surrounding this plat necessitated a more thorough review. Moreover, further analysis of the case revealed that the DNS recommendation previously issued by King County and relied upon by ERC may create conflict and problems with the ensuing plat review. Therefore, the decision was made, on November I 0, 2008, to rescind the threshold determination of the project pending further analysis of potential environmental impacts to the site. The rescission of the ERC's DNS resulted in the negating the two existing appeals that have been filed. The project site is located between 162"d Ave SE on the west and 164'h Ave SE on the east; and SE 1401h St on the north and SE 142"' St on the south. Access is proposed via 162"• Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via three new public streets; SE 1401h Place, 163'• Ave SE, and SE 141" Place. II PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 200 I Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction. 2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. ERC Report 08-093 City of Renton Department of Co LIBERTY GARDENS PRELI!r Report of December 15, 2008 mity & Economic Development RY PLAT r, vironmental Review Committee Report LUAOB-093,ECF, PP Page 3 of7 4. The applicant shall provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter), prior to plat recording, set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost; to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years. 5. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. 6. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). C. Exhibits Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Yellow File (containing the application, reports, staff comments, prior staff/county decisions and other material pertinent to the review of the project) Zoning Map Aerial Photo Preliminary Plat Drainage Plan KCC Sensitive Areas Code KCC 21A.24 (2004) D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the follodwing probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. The soils on the site are classified as Alderwood series. The applicant is not aware of the amount of grading that would happen as a result of the proposal. The majority of the grading required for the project would be for the construction of the proposed roads, building pads, utilities, and stormwater detention facilities and will be balanced on-site. Approximately 70 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces upon completion of the project. Due to the potential for erosion on the subject site, the applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TE SCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 200 I Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permits and during utility and road construction. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, DOE Manual 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland is located in the southwest comer of the property and is associated with a small intermittent stream. There is another isolated wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest ERC Report 08-093 City of Renton Department of Co LIBERTY GARDENS PREL/k Report of December 15, 2008 . nity & Economic Development RY PLAT ~ vironmental Review Committee Report ' . LUAOB-093,ECF, PP Page 4 of7 comer of the site. The applicant submitted a Wetland/Stream Evaluation and Mitigation Plan, by B- 12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated November 19, 2004), delineating the wetlands and stream on site as well as classifying the wetlands as Class II and the stream as Class III according to the County's critical area rating system (KCC 21 A.24 ). A secondary study/revised mitigation plan was submitted by the applicant, conducted by Chad Armour, LLC ( dated May 16, 2007), in which the classification and delineation by B-12 were affirmed. The Class 2 wetlands and Class 3 stream extend off-site into the unimproved right-of-way, 162nd Ave SE, at the southwest and northwest comer of the site. The wetland associated with the stream is a small forested wetland characterized by an overstory of red alder and cottonwood with salmonberry, lady fem, and manna grass in the understory. The stream channel is a narrow 12-inch gravel/soil bottom channel which appears to be intermittent with no fish use. The off-site wetland, located at the northwest comer, is a young forested wetland dominated by immature alder, salmonberry, and lady fem. Per the 2004 County regulations a Class III stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream and requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The standard 50-foot buffer for the Category 2 wetland is the encumbering buffer, rendering the stream buffer immaterial to the development of the site. In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its buffer the applicant will be required to establish a Sensitive Areas Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring a covenant be placed on the tract restricting its separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document should be submitted to the Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. The applicant proposes to improve l 62°<l Ave SE with half street improvements, thus causing impacts to the off-site wetland and stream. The applicant indicates that approximately 2,387 square feet of wetland and 14,840 square feet of buffer would be affected as a result of the proposed improvement to 162nd Ave SE. In addition a portion of the stream, in the amount of 30 linear feet, is proposed to be placed in a 48-inch culvert. A conceptual mitigation plan for the proposed wetland buffer impacts was submitted with the project application. If the applicant intends on altering the wetlands or stream, as part of an improvement to 162nd Ave SE, a detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from that alteration will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. A performance bond, in accordance with KCC 27 A, or other financial guarantee will be required at the time of plan approval to guarantee that the mitigation plan is installed according to the approved final plan. The installation of the approved final mitigation plan must be completed prior to the final plat recording. In order to ensure the success of the mitigation plan staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. After the approval of the final maintenance and monitoring plan, a performance surety must be provided to the City of Renton for the maintenance and monitoring period prior to the issuance final plat recording. Staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, that the applicant provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years. In order to provide the amount of security necessary for the maintenance and monitoring of the wetland mitigation plantings, signage, and fencing, a copy of the signed maintenance and monitoring contract for this work shall be provided. A draft (followed by a final) maintenance and monitoring contract (or contracts) for City review prior to execution of the contract shall be provided. The draft contract language must ensure compliance with the performance standards of the approved mitigation plan as well the maintenance and monitoring standards. Conditions associated with preliminary plat will likely include wetland signs and fencing, as allowed by County Code. ERC Report 08-093 City of Renton Department of Co LIBERTY GARDENS PRELI!, Report of December 15, 2008 Mitigation Measures: nity & Economic Development RY PLAT .., vironmental Review Committee Report LUAOB-093,ECF, PP Page 5 of7 I. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 2. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 3. The applicant shall provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter), prior to plat recording, set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost; to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years. Nexus: KCC 21 A.24; SEPA Environmental Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: The site lies within the Lower Cedar sub-basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed. Currently runoff discharges into the Class III stream located at the southwest comer of the site from the northeast. Water then flows southwesterly to eastern side of l 62"d Ave SE and disperses into a sheet flow south, within the unimproved 162"d Ave SE right-of-way. Further south, water passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet from the 162"d Ave SE and SE 144th Ave intersection. Water then enters a sma11 detention pond also located within the unimproved l 62"d Ave SE right-of-way. From the detention pond, water is conveyed across SE 144th Street via an 18- inch culvert. Water then travels west within an 18-inch conveyance facility along the southern side of SE 144•h St. The enclosed pipe system continues west, past 1561h Ave SE, continuing west eventually outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then turns south and outlets to the Cedar River. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from the proposed streets, sidewalks, homes, and lawns and covey into a proposed storm water vault located in Tract B in the southwestern portion of the site. The outfall of the proposed vault would be conveyed back into the stream channel before leaving the property along its natural drainage course. The applicant is proposing water quality treatment in accordance with the 1993 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant submitted a Level III Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Ed McCarthy P.E., dated July 2, 2008. The report identifies several downstream problems and includes recommendations to mitigate for the proposed development's impacts of downstream flooding. A letter with additional recommended storm water mitigation was received March 11, 2008, from Ed McCarthy P.E. Due to potential downstream drainage problems, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. Mitigation Measures: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County Surface Water Design Manual 3. Transportation Impacts: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way of 162"d and 1641h Ave SE. The property is located approximately 1,300 linear feet from the intersection of 162"d Ave SE and SE 136'h Place; 400 feet from the intersections of SE 144 1h Street and 162"d Ave SE as well as the intersection of SE 144 1h Street and 1641h Ave SE. No current improved access exists except nominally from 164th Avenue SE. High Accident Locations have been identified as effected by this development. Per King County Road standards (KCRS 1.03)-1993 any land development abutting and impacting existing roads shall improve the frontage of those roads in accordance with KCRS. The applicant is currently proposing the improvement along the frontage of 162"d Ave SE only. Staff will be recommending a condition of approval, as part of the preliminary plat review; that requires the applicant to improve the street ERC Report 08-093 City of Renton Department of Co LIBERTY GARDENS PRELI Report of December 15, 2008 nity & Economic Development RY PLAT .... vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-093,ECF, PP Page 6 of7 frontage along 164th Ave SE in addition to 162"a Ave SE to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). As discussed earlier in the report; 162"a Ave SE is encumbered by two separate Class II wetlands and a Class III stream. The applicant may request a variance for modification to the frontage improvement requirements in order to avoid impacts to the critical areas located in the unimproved right of way. However, secondary access must still be provided; see discussion below. Due to the identified impacts and the one-way distance from the nearest intersection, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to provide secondary access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety. The improvement of 162"' Ave SE, from where it currently terminates near the 138xx block to SE 144th St, was proposed by the applicant in order to provide secondary access. The applicant has entered into a three party contract with other pending development proposals in the area (Cavalla, LUAOS- 097/DDES L06P0001 and Threadgill DOES L05P0026) in order to jointly improve the extension of 162"a Ave SE to SE 144th St. Construction ofan internal street that connects 162"a Ave SE to 164'h Ave SE would provide an alternative for secondary access. The applicant may opt to not improve the off-site extension of 162"a Ave SE from the southwest comer of the site to 144'h Ave SE as long as secondary access is provided to the plat. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Mitigation Measures: l. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County Road Standards -1993 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, January 5, 2009. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERC Report 08-093 City of Renton Department of Co LIBERTY GARDENS PRELI/VJ Report of December 15, 2008 nily & Economic Development RY PLAT .r vironmenta/ Review Committee Report LUAOB-093,ECF, PP Page 7 of7 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action and are not all inclusive; for more code requirements please refer to the King County Code. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant will be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. 3. Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities. The boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete. 4. Building and other structures shall be setback a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers. 5. A detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from any alterations to critical areas will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. 6. The applicant will be required to improve the street frontage along 164"' Ave SE in addition to 162"d Ave SE to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Water: 1. All fire hydrants installed or serving this subdivision are required to be fitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting. 2. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. Sanitary Sewer: 1. A System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for any new development and will be charged with the construction permit. 2. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase lI SAD unit charge of$344.71 per lot. 3. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. Surface Water: I. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County surface water design manual. The preliminary drainage report (TlR) submitted with the project Environmental Review has addresses requirements for detention and water quality per the 1990 KCSWM, and used the 1998 KCSWDM modeling (KCRTS model) to design detention and water quality facilities. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SOC) per lot is required for this site. Transportation: I. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel (162"• Ave SE and 164th Ave SE) and on the interior streets in accordance with the King County Road Standards (1993). 2. Two points of access are required for this development due to the one-way distance from the nearest point of public access. 3. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter. landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be re uired. ERC Report 08-093 E7 -11 T23N R5E E 1/2 ii" '/ ~ l / / i / / SE 128th S! . S_E 13a..i.~. SE 132nd Pl .. 4-133n:I Pl'" SE 134th Pl SE"f35fh $t SE1~u,s1 j~~J). SE.13Tth Pl SE 131!th Pl Sti-11stt'I SE 142od St ~ N ~- Sic 1441hSt . t ~ I . L __ _J''.:''c:'«~"'_>"c__-'----'---_Jt_ ___ _1~----:--:-::--:-::-::::-::-:-::--'--'-i'-~-'--::-~~·"'1----""" G7 -23 T23N R5E E 1/2 Ll~l2:f'/ F7 ~-'S, ZONING PW TECH.i""llCAL SER~ 07/15/08 EXHIBIT 2 s JT"-E: 14 T23N RSE E 1/2 5314 Renton City Limits Parcels Renton SCALE 1 : 4,607 200 0 200 FEET http://rentonnet.org/MapGuide/maps/Parcel.mwf TT 400 I 600 N A EXHIBIT 3 Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:50 PM SN30l:IVO A.11::l38n ,o -· _...,,. -.... ~ JJ.0/"00 Illa DIIGI ""' .. oo< ,a/ .. /,, J lllll r, ON <0/11/f t 6l99-91"6 (E.,';l") 86'96 'r:/M 'S3NI~ 830 1:::i o~ca s uB 31W3d ·r, GIA'r:/G ; ;, ,,i ,. 1!1, ii• 11,; !a ~~~i " -'- i :;-!il!?:!~~p V 'Ii V i Ii~:;~,--~ s ! ! 11, ii!! !:!l ~ ! ,f 11 :i::i::i ::i '! '! 9' .. 'I I i I ii I ;I i !iliih H! , i,1; I ...... 11d <, ~~ T •"' ~ : "" ,~ ' 1v •. J --_-;-,.;- ., PRELMNAAY 0AA0No ANO STORM DAAINAGE P1..AN OF LIBERTY GARDENS A POMON OF ll-E SE 1/,4 OF SECl10N 1$ TO~ 22 N, RAN0E ~ E, WM. KNQ COUNTY, WASHNOTON .,, ,£tlf' ~,,..,"'-" ~ -"' ~~ • ~ t "'" l ,,_____ .. '!),,'' -' " . ...... -., " 1 ·-... • ,, , , •'° •" ,r ,,1 ," .,. .,Y _ _. :,.~ ~ ~ .. ,,.• .,/ -~ ,, / / ,,.,,, ~---------,"(. -,~-' • ,--...._:;-. ___ ,._,,,."'~:~~-~~ ~"""':..,-:,:~_::·:pf'.!l-L ~;;..-;.:· • J.::1 ... ,,>::: / . \ --19 ,. .. ,,., • '""'/' ---..-~+ l ! ;;.:..JC ,g. )i,1 \ 1/ /, .\ '1"'1"~ 1, ·, .. ,/. \ ' . 'f' .. ·.· ~·1· .. I I~ j"t--'- 1 ,' I ' · .. l.( ,. l..,,,:»,,, , .. EXHIBIT 5 I .nr_,.,.,_ l -""""'"1,,_ I ·z:: 111 ~,12 ,2:c@.,J 1 ··-"''"'""""'""'' -'""""""' / , ··----·___/ / -· '"""" ,..., /' TYPICAL =~ir.:;~-/ :~~TI!ACTSECOON ~ L,;.J"I t",·too<•1e.wc,..-r-.,.,TrPI ""'"""""'"'_ ... ,_ .. , ;;~1:::-M< o' ..... COW',cm,-.,.• ......... ,,"(.O,ru, .... .!.t:i" •f~-1"- ='.r~~1r:- .!.t.:.a: ..._ ...... """' ~ .. "'·"'· TYPICAL ON-8/TE PUBU:: ROAD SECTION h i~ l;~I I~ i ! I;!.; e., ! ~ 11 il ~ I I! I , ·)·!·J 1J!l11 !..!.llif I !I ~ I 'I ' ;!!! I I ;di «I 1 11 ....... ' '~\t f "} ! '\. .... -~·.. I ! g I ~ i ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24 Sections: 21A.24.010 21A.24.020 21A.24.030 21A.24.040 21A.24.050 21A.24.060 21A.24.070 21A.24.075 21A.24.080 21A.24.090 21A.24.100 21A.24.110 21A.24.120 21A.24.130 21A.24.140 21A.24.150 21A.24.160 21A.24.170 21A.24.180 21A.24.190 21A.24.200 21A.24.210 21A.24.220 21A.24.230 21A.24.240 21A.24.2SO 21A.24.260 21A.24.270 . 21A.24.275 21A.24.280 21A.24.290 21A.24.300 21A.24.310 21A.24.320 21A.24.330 21A.24.340 21A.24.345 21A.24.350 21A.24.360 21A.24.370 21A.24.380 21A.24.390 21A.24.400 21A.24.410 21A.24.420 21A.24.S00 21A.24.510 Chapter 21A24 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSmVE AREAS Purpose. Applicability. Appeals. Sensitive areas rules. Complete exemptions. Partial exemptions. Exceptions. Modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements -urban lots. Sensitive area maps and inventories. Disclosure by applicant. Sensitive area review. Sensitive area special study requirement. Contents of sensitive area special study. Mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency. Financial guarantees. Vegetation management plan. Sensitive area markers and signs. Notice on title. Sensitive area tracts and designations on site plans. Atteralion. Building setbacks. Coal mine hazard areas: Development standards and pennitted alterations. Erosion hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. Flood hazard areas: Components. Flood fringe: Development standards and permitted alterations. Zero-rise floodway: Development standards and permitted alterations. FEMA floodway: Development standards and permitted alterations. Flood hazard areas: Certification by engineer or surveyor. Channel relocation and stream meander areas. Landslide hazard areas: Development standards and pennitted alterations. Seismic hazard areas: Development standards and pennllted aiterations. Volcanic hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. Steep slope hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. Wettands: Development standards. Wetlands: Permitted alterations. Wetlands: mitigation requirements. Weflands: Mitigation banking. Wettands: Limited exemption. Streams: Development standards. Streams: Permitted alterations. Streams: Mitigation requirements. Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Creation of fund. Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Source of funds. Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Use of funds. Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Investment of funds. Sensitive area designation. Effect of approval of septic system design based on sensitive area designation. (King County 9-2004) EXHIBIT 6 21A-183 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.010 -21A.24.020 21A.24.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the goals and policies of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, and the King County Comprehensive Plan which call for protection of the natural environment and the public health and safety by: A. Establishing development standards to protect defined sensitive areas; B. Protecting members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, property damage or financial loss due to flooding, erosion, avalanche, landslides, seismic and volcanic events, soil subsidence or steep slope failures; C. Protecting unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment including, but not limited to, wildlife and its habitat; D. Requiring mitigation of unavoidable impacts on environmentally sensitive areas by regulating alterations in or near sensitive areas; E. Preventing cumulative adverse environmental impacts on water availability, water quality, ground water, wetlands and streams; F. Measuring the quantity and quality of wetland and stream resources and preventing overall net loss of wetland and stream functions; G. Protecting the public trust as to navigable waters and aquatic resources; H. Meeting the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and maintaining King County as an eligible community for federal flood insurance benefits; I. Alerting members of the public including, but not limited to, appraisers, owners, potential buyers or ·1essees to the development limitations of sensitive areas; and J. Providing county officials with sufficient information to protect sensitive areas. (Ord. 11621 § 69, 1994: 10870 § 448, 1993). 21A.24.020 Applicability. A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all land uses in King County, and all persons within the county shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. · B. King County shall not approve any permit or otherwise issue any authorization to alter the condition of any land, water or vegetation or to construct or alter any structure or improvement without first assuring compliance with the requirements of this chapter. C. Approval of a development proposal pursuant lo the provisions of this chapter does not discharge the obligation of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this chapter. D. When any provision of any other chapter of the King County Code conflicts with this chapter or when the provisions of this chapter are in conflict, that provision which provides more protection to environmentally sensitive areas shall apply unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter or unless such provision conflicts with federal or state laws or regulations. E. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all forest practices over which the county has jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 76.09 and WAC 222. (Ord. 10870 § 449, 1993). (King County 9--2004) 21A-185 ~\ 21A.24.030 -21A.24.050 ZONING 21A.24.030 Appeals. Any decision to approve, condition or deny a development proposal based on the requirements of K.C.C. 21A24 may be appealed according lo and as part of the appeal procedure for the permit or approval involved. (Ord. 10870 § 450, 1993). 21 A.24.040 Sensitive areas rules. Applicable departments within King County are authorized to adopt, pursuant to K.C.C. 2.98, such administrative rules and regulations as are necessary and appropriate to implement K.C.C. 21A.24 and to prepare and require the use of such forms as are necessary to its administration. (Ord. 10870 § 451, 1993). 21A24.050 Complete exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and any administrative rules promulgated thereunder: A Alterations in response to emergencies which threaten the public health, safety and welfare or which pose an imminent risk of damage to private property as long as any alteratiOA undertaken pursuant to this subsection is reported to the department immediately. The director shall confirm that an emergency exists and determine what, if any, mitigation shall be required to protect the health, safety, welfare and environment and to repair any resource damage; B .. Agricultural activities as described below, in existence before November 27, 1990, and performed not less often than once every frve years thereafter: 1. Mowing of hay, grass or grain crops; 2. Tilling, discing, planting, seeding, harvesting, soil preparation, crop rotation and related activities for pasture, food crops, grass seed or sod if such activities do not take place on steep slopes; 3. Normal and routine maintenance of existing irrigation and drainage ditches not used by salmonids; 4. Normal and routine maintenance of farm ponds, fish ponds, manure lagoons and livestock watering ponds; and 5. grazing by livestock. C. Public water, electric and natural gas distribution, public sewer collection, cable communications, telephone utility and related activities undertaken pursuant to county-approved best management practices, as follows: 1. Normal and routine maintenance or repair of existing utHity structures or rights-of-way; 2. Relocation of electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of flfly-frve thousand volts or less, only when required by a local governmental agency which approves the new location of the facilities; 3 .. Replacement, operation, repair, modification, installation or construction in existing developed utftity corridors, an improved county road right-of-way or county-authorized private roadway of all electric facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations; 4. Relocation of public sewer local collection, public water local distribution, natural gas, cable communication or telephone facRities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances, only when required by a local governmental agency which approves the new location of the facilHles; 5. Replacement, operation, repair, modification, installation or construction of public sewer local collection, public water local distribution, natural gas, cable communication or telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances when such facilities are located within an improved public right-of-way or county authorized private roadway; D. Maintenance, operation, repair, modification or replacement of publicly improved roadways as long as any such alteration does not involve the expansion of roadways or related improvements into previ- ously unimproved rights-of-way or portions of rights-of-way; E. Maintenance, operation or repair of publicly improved recreation areas as long as any such alteration does not involve the expansion of improvements into previously unimproved recreation areas; F. Public agency development proposals only to the extent of any construction contract awarded before November 27, 1990, provided that any law or regulation In effect at the time of such award shan apply to the proposal; (King County 9-2004) 21A-186 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.050 -21A.24.060 G. All clearing and grading activities which are exempt from the requirement for a clearing and grading permit as specified in K.C.C. 16.82.050, unless these activities 'require other permits or authorizations as specified in K.C.C. 21A.24.020. H. The following exempt activities are permitted in coal mine hazard areas, provided that the applicable landowner, operator or utility is made aware of potential hazards: 1 . Forest practices; 2. Agricultural activities; 3. Mining activities; 4. Power, telephone, and cable television utility Jines; 5. Grading, filling, stockpile removal, and reclamation activities performed in conjunction with or by the Department of Interior's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement with lhe intent of eliminating or mitigating threats to human health, public safety, environmental restoration or protection of property; and 6. Land uses and activities that existed prior lo November 30, 1998. (Ord. 13319 § 6, 1998: Ord. 11621 § 71, 1994: 10870 § 452, 1993). 21A.24.060 Partial exemptions. A. The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and any administrative rules promulgated thereunder, except for the notice on title provisions, K.C.C. 21A.24.170 -21A.24.180, and the flood hazard area provisions, K.C.C. 21A.24.230 -21A.24.270: 1. Structural modification of, addition to or replacement of structures, except single detached residences, in existence before November 27, 1990 which do not meet the buff ding setback or buffer requirements for wetlands, streams or steep slope hazard areas if -the modification, addition, replacement or related activity does not increase the existing footprint of the structure lying within the above-described building setback area, sensitive area or buffer; 2. Structural modification of, addition to or replacement of single delached residences in existence before November 27, 1990 which do not meet the building setback or buffer requirements for wetlands, streams or steep slope hazard areas if U,e modification, addition, replacement or related activity does not increase the existing footprint of the residence lying within the above-described buffer or building setback area by more than 1000 square feet over that existing before November 27, 1990 and no portion of the modification, addition or replacement is located closer to the sensitive area or, if U,e existing residence is in the sensitive area. extends farther into the sensitive area; and 3. Maintenance or repair of structures which do not meet the development standards of this chapter for coal mine, landslide; seismic or volcanic hazard areas if the maintenance or repairdoes not increase the footprint of the structure and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed maintenance or repair; B. The grazing of liv_estock Is exempt from the provisions of this chapter and any administrative rules promulgated thereunder, except for the livestock restriction provisions, K.C.C. 21A.24.320 and 21A.24.360, and any animal density limitations established by law, if the grazing activity was in existence before November 27, 1990; C. A permit or approval sought as part of a development proposal for which multiple permits are required is exempt from the provisions of this chapter and any administrative rules promulgated thereunder, except for the notice on tiUe provisions, K.C.C. 21A.24_170 -21A.24.180, if: 1. King County previously reviewed all sensitive areas on the site; 2. There is no material change in the development proposal since the prior review; 3. There is no new information available which is important to any sensitive area· review of the site or particular sensitive area; 4. The permit or approval under which the prior review was conducted has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years lapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; and 5. The prior permit or approval, including any oonditions, has been complied with. (Ord. 10870 § 453, 1(193). (King County 9-2004) 21A-187 21A.24.070 -21A.24.075 ZONING 21A.24.070 Exceptions. A. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency and utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this subsection: 1. The public agency or utility shall apply to the department and shall make ava~able to the department other related project documents such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies and SEPA documents. 2. The department shall review the application based on the following criteria: a. there is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the sensitive area; and b. the proposal minimizes the impact on sensitive areas. 3. The department shall process exceptions, provide public notice, and provide opportunity for the public to request a public hearing, and provide an appeal process consistent with the provisions of K.C.C. 20.20. 4. This exception shall not allow the use of the following sensitive areas for regional stormwater management facilities except where there is a clear showing tliat the facility will protect public health and safety or repair damaged natural resources: a. class 1 streams or buffers; b. class 1 wetiands or buffers with plant associations of Infrequent occurrence; or c. class 1 or 2 weUands or buffers which provide critlcal or outstanding habitat for herons, raptors or state or federal designated endangered or threatened species unless· clearly demonstrated by the applicant that there will be no impact on such habit.at. B. If the application of this chapter would deny aR reasonable use of the property, the applicant may apply for an exception pursuant to this subsection: 1 . The applicant may apply for a reasonable use exception without first having applied for a variance ~ the requested exception includes relief from standards for which a variance cannot be granted pursuant to the provisions of K.C.C. chapter 21A.44. The applicant shall apply to the department, and the department shall make a final decision based on the following criteria: a. the application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property; b. there is no other reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area; c. the proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site and is consistent with the general purposes of this chapter and the public interest; and d. any alterations permitted to the sensitive area shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; and any authorized alteration of a sensitive area under this subsection shall be subject to conditions established by the department including. but not limited to, mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. (Ord. 13190 § 19, 1998: Ord. 12196 § 54, 1996: Ord. 11621 § 73, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 454, 1993). .. 21A.24.075 Modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements -urban lots. The purpose of this n is to provide an alternative to the variance. and exception processes for minor developmenl A furth purpose of this section is to minimize impacts to sensitive areas by allowing minor modifications of the zo ·ng code which allow single family residences on existing. legal urban lots without requiring a variance or ception. The director shall have the discretion to modfy or waive some or all of the requirements of this ltle, including mitigation requirements, pertaining to class 3 wetlands, class ~ streams, and their associ ed buffers or building setback areas in accordance with the provisions of this section. A. An applicant may equest a modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements pursuant to this section provided the lot or lo are located in an urban area designated in the King County Comprehensive Plan; and · B. The applicant for Iii modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements shall submit any sensitive area special studies fol ·ng a preapplication review meeting as required under K.C.C. 21A.24.110 as well as·such other documents, studies, as requested by the director. (King County 9-2004) 21A-188 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENS11 IVE AREAS 21A.24.075 -21A.24.090 C. The director may grant a modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements provided: 1. The proposal is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access. In no case, however, shall the building footprint exceed 5000 square feet, including access, 2. Access is located so as to have the least impact on the sensitive area and Its buffer, 3. The proposal preserves the functions and values of wetlands and streams· to the maximum extent possible, 4. Adverse impacts resulting from alterafions of steep slopes are minimized, 5. The proposal includes on-site mitigation to the maximum ex)ent possible. 6. The proposal will not significantly affect drainage capabilities, flood potential, and steep slopes and landslide hazards either on neighboring properties or on the proposal Itself; and ,,. 7. The proposal frrst develops nonsensitive area land, then the sensitive buffer before the sensitive area itself is developed. The director may require on-site or off-site mitigation measures to corn sale for the loss of the functions and values of the sensitive areas and may impose mitigating cond' · ns to the modification or waiver in order to meet the standards of this subsection C. D. Where a modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements u r this section is proposed, the director shaR give written mailed notice of the proposed modification waiver to all owners of property located within three hundred feel of any boundary of the subject prope and to the water and land resources div.ision and shall allow fifteen calendar days for comment before aking a decision. The decision of the dtector regarding the modification or waiver shall be mafled to e applicant and to any other person who requests a copy. The decision shall state the reasons for den or any required mitigation or other conditions imposed. The decision of the director regarding the mod!flcation or waiver may be appealed per K.C.C. 21A.24.030. ·• E. This section shall not apply to the following steep slope hazard areas: 1. Steep slope hazard areas that are unm itiga'table landslide hazard areas; and 2. Steep slope hazard areas of slope gre~ter than seventy percent where either the lot or slope are abutting and above a class 1 or 2 wetland stream, and associated buffer, or an open stormwater conveyance system. (Ord.13190§20, 1998: Ord.11621 § JD, 1994). ; 21A.24.080 Sensitive area maps a,rid inventories. A. The distribution of many envi nmentally sensitive areas In western King County is displayed on maps in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio. ny of the wetlands are inventoried and rated and that information is published in the King County Wetla s Inventory Notebooks. Many flood hazard areas are mapped by the Federal Insurance Administration in scientific and engineering report entitled •The Flood Insurance Study for King County.• If there is a con among the maps, inventory and site-specific features, the department of development and environme I services shall verify the actual preserice or absence of the features defined in this title as sensitive reas. The determination may be challenged by the property owner. (Ord. 11621 § 74, 1994: Ord.10870 §455, 1993). 21A.24.090 Disclosure by applicant. A. The applicant shall disclose to King County the presence of sensitive areas on the development proposal site and any mapped or identiftable sensitive areas within 100 feet of the applicant's property. B. If the development proposal site contains or is within a sensitive area, the applicant shall submit an affidavit which declares whether the applicant has knowledge of any illegal alteration to any or all sensitive areas on the development proposal site and whether the applicant previously has been found in violation of this chapter, pursuant to K.C.C. Tille 23. If the applicant previously has been found in violation, the applicant shall declare whether such violation has been corrected to the satisfaction of King County. (Ord. 10870 § 456, 1993). ,------- (King County 9-2004) 21A-189 \· ' , ' 21A.24.100 -21A.24.120 ZONING 21A.24.100 Sensitive area review. A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, King County shall perform a sensitive area review for any development proposal permit application or other request for permission to proceed with an alteration on a site that includes a sensitive area or is within an identified sensitive area buffer or building setback area. B. As part of the sensitive area review, King County shaU: 1. Determine whether any sensitive area exists on the property and confirm its nature and type; 2. Determine whether a sensitive area special study is required; 3. Evaluate the sensitive area special study; 4. Determine whether the development proposal is consistent with this chapter; 5. Determine whether any proposed alteration to the sensitive area is necessary; and 6. Determine if the mitigation and monitoring plans and bonding measures proposed by the applicant are sufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare, consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this chapter. C. If a development proposal does not involve any site disturbance, clearing, or grading and only requires a permit or approval under K.C.C. chapter 16.04 or 17.04, sensitive area review is not required, unless the development proposal is located within a landslide hazard area, seismic hazard area, or coal mine hazard area and the proposed development will cause additional loads on the foundation, such as by expanding the habitable square footage of the structure or by adding or changing structural features that change the load bearing characteristics of the structure. Sensitive area review required under this subsection shall be limited to consideration of the development proposal and the hazard area ·in which It is located. (Ord. 14449 § 9, 2002: Ord. 10870 § 457, 1993). 21A.24.110 Sensitive area special study requirement. A. An applicant for a development proposal which includes a sensitive area or is within an identified sensitive area buffer shall submit a sensitive area special study to adequately evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts. B. King County may waive the requirement for a special study if the applica[lt shows, to King County's satisfaction, that: 1. There will be no alteration of the sensitive area or buffer; 2. The development proposal will not have an impact on the sensitive area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this chapter; and 3. The minimum standards required by this chapter are met. C. If necessary to insure. compliance with this chapter, King· County may require additional information from the applicant, separate from the special study. (Ord. 10870 § 458, 1993). 21A.24. 120 Contents of sensitive area special study. A. The sensitive area special study shall be in the form of a written report and shall contain the following, as applicable: 1. Identification and characterization of all sensitive areas on or encompassing the development proposal site; 2. Assessment of the impacts of any alteration proposed for a sensitive area or buffer, assessment of the impacts of ;my alteration on the development proposal, other properties and the environment, and/or assessment of the Impacts to the development proposal resulting from development in the sensitive area or buffer; 3. Studies which propose adequate mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency plans and bonding measures; · ... 4. A scale map of the development proposal site; and 5. Detailed studies, ~ required by King County. B. A sensitive area special study may be combined with any studies required by other laws and regulations; and . , C. H the development proposal will affect only a part of the development proposal site, the county may limit the scope of the required special study to include only that part of the site "Which may be affected by the development. (Ord. 10870 § 459, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-1.90 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A24.130 • 21A24.170 21A.24.130 Mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency. A As determined by King County, mitigation, maintenance and monitoring measures shall be in place to protect sensitive areas and buffers from alterations occurring on the development proposal site. B. Where monitoring reveals a significant deviation from predicted impacts or a failure of mitigation or maintenance measures, the applicant shall be responsible for appropriate corrective action which, wh. en __.-/. approved, shall be subject to further monitoring. (Ord. 10870 § 460, 1993). . ___ ________ 21A.24.140 Financial guarantees. Financial guarantees shall be requ~ed consistent with the provisionsofTitle27A. (Ord.12020§54, 1995: Ord.10870§461, 1993). 21A.24.1SO Vegetation management plan. A For all development proposals where preservation of existing vegetation is required by this chapter, a vegetation management plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the permit or other request for permission to proceed with an alteration. B. The vegetation management plan shall identify the proposed clearing lim~Jcif the project and any areas where vegetation in a sensitive area or its buffer is proposed to be disturbe9( · C. Where clearing includes cutting any merchantable stand of timber, as'defined in WAC 222-16- 010(28), the vegetation management plan shall include a description of propo;;e<l logging practices which demonstrates how all sensitive areas wiD be protected in accordance with the'.provisions of this chapter. D. Clearing limits as shown on the plan shall be marked in ,the field in a prominent and durable manner. Proposed methods of field marking shall be reviewed and approved by King County prior to any site alteration. Field marking shall remain in place until the certificate of occupancy or fmal project approval is granted. E. The vegetation management plan may be incorporated into a temporary erosion and sediment control plan or landscaping plan where either of these plans is required by other laws or regulations. F. Submltlal requirements for vegetation management plans shaft be set forth in administrative rules. (Ord. 10870 § 462, 1993). 21A.24.160 Sensitive area markers and signs. A. Permanent sutvey stakes delineating the boundary between adjoining property and sensitive area tracts shall be set, using iron or concrete markers as established by current survey standards. B. The boundary between a sensitive area tract and contiguous land shall be identified with permanentsigns. (Ord. 10870 § 463, 1993). l \ ·;. \ 21A.24.170 Notice on title. /__.--, · A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of C of this section, the owner of any property containing sensitive areas or buffers on which a development proposal is submitte<l shall file ii notice approved by King County with the records. elections and licensing services division. The required contents and form of the notice shall be set forth in administrative rules. l:he notice shall inform the public of the presence of sensitive areas or buffers on the property, of the application of this chapter lo the property and that limitations on actions in or affecting such sensitive areas or buffers may exist The notice shall run with the land. B, The applicant for a development proposal shaU submit proof that the notice required by this section has been file<l for public record before King County shall approve any development proposal for the property or, in the case of subdivisions,. short subdivisions and binding site plans, at or before recording. C. The notice require<l under subsection A of this section is not required if: 1. The property is a public right.of-way or the site of a permanent public facility; or 2. The development proposal does not require sensitive area review under K.C.C. 21A.24.100C. (Ord. 14449 § 10, 2002: Ord. 14187 § 3, 2001: Ord. 10870 § 464, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-191 21A.24.180 -21A.24.210 ZONING 21 A.24.180 Sensitive area tracts and designations on site plans. A. Sensitive area tracts shall be used to delineate and protect those sensitive areas and buffers listed below in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions or binding site plans and shall be recorded on all documents of tiUe of record for all affected lots: 1. All landslide hazard areas and buffers that are one acre or greater in size; 2. Al,I steep slope hazard areas and buffers that are one acre or greater in size; 3. All wetlands and buffers; and 4. All streams and buffers. B. Arry required sensitive area tract shall be held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with this ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot or shall be held by an incorporated horneo'Mler's association or other legal entity which assures the ownership, maintenance and protection of the tract. C. Site plans submitted as part of development proposals for buHding permits, master plan developments and clearing and grading perm its shall include and delineate: 1. All flood hazard areas, if they have been mapped by FEMA or King County or if a special study is required; 2. Landslide, volcanic, coal mine and steep slope hazard areas; 3. Streams and wetlands; 4. Buffers; and 5. Building setbacks. D. lfonly a part of the development site has been mapped pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.120C, the part of the site that has not been mapped shall be clearly identified and labeled on the site plans. (Ord. 14449 § 11, 2002: Ord. 10870 § 465, 1993). . 21A.24.190 AHeratlon. Any human activity which results or is likely to result In an impact upon the existing condition of a sensitive area is an alteration which is subject to specific limitations as specified for each sensitive area. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, dredging, draining, channelizing, applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous substance, discharging pollutants except stormwater, grazing domestic animals, paving, constructing, applying gravel, modifying for surface water management purposes, cutting, pruning, topping, trimming, relocating or removing vegetation or any other human activity which results or is likely to result in an impact to existent vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Alterations do not include walking, fishing or any other passive recreation or other similar activities. (Ord. 10870 § 466, 1993). 21 A.24.200 Building setbacks. Unless otherwise provided, buRdings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers or from the edges of all sensitive areas, if no buffers are required. The following may be allowed in the buiding setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Uncovered decks; C. Building overhangs if such ov~angs do not extend more than 18 inches into the setback area; and D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios, provided that such improvements 1\ '.J may be subject to special drainage provisions specified in administrative rules adopted for the various '--.t.. ·sensitive areas. (Ord. 10870 § 467, 1993). 21A.24.210 Coal mine hazard areas: Development standards and pennitted alterations. A. Alterations within coal mine hazard areas shall not be permitted without prior acceplance of a coal mine hazard assessment report and provided that: 1. Based upon recommendations contained within the report, a studied site shaN be classified as one or a combination of the foBowing: a. declassified coal mine areas; b. moderate coal mine hazard areas; or c. severe coal mine hazard areas. (King County 9--2004) 21A-192 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24210 2. The coal mine hazard assessment report shall be prepared by a professional engineer using methodology and assumptions consistent with standards or professional engineering guidelines adopted by the department. The report may contain the following as determined by the department to be necessary for the review of the proposed use: a. a statement of the professional engineer's qualifications and licensing information, together with a signature and stamped seal; b. a list of references utilized in preparation of the report; . c. a description of the analytical tools and processes that have been used in the report; d. surface exploration data such as borings, drill holes, test pits, wells, geologic reports, and other relevant reports or site investigations that may be useful in making conclusions or recommendations about the site under investigation; e. a description of historical data and information used in the evaluation, together with sources. Such data and information shall include: ( 1 ) topographic maps at a scale and contour interval of sufficient detail to assess the site. The site boundaries and proposed site development shall be overlain with the mine plan view inap, as appropriate; · (2) copies of illustrative coal mine maps showing remnant mine conditions. if avaHable; (3) aerial photography, as appropriate; (4) geological data includi"I} geologic crosssections and other illustrative data as appropriate; and (5) available historic mine records indicating the dates of operation, the date of cessation of active mining, the number of years since abandonment, mining methods, shoring and timbering information, the strength of the overiying rock strata, the extracted seam thickness, the dip or Iodination of the strata, workings and surface, the projected surface location of the seam outcrop or subcrop, the estimated depth of the seam outcrop or subcrop, if covered by glacial outwash, glacial till or other materials at depth, total coal tonnage produced, estimated coal mine by-product material produced and the estimated extraction ratio. f. a mine plan view map, reproduced at the same scale as the topographic map, showing the location of the mine, the extent of mining, the proposed site development, if applicable, and any remnant abandoned mine surface features. The following shall be included: ( 1) the layout of the underground mine; (2) the location of any mine entries, portals, adits, mine shafts, air shafts, limber shafts, and other significant mine features; (3) the location of any known sinkholes, significant surface depressions, trough subsidence features, coal mine spoil pffes and other mine-related surface features; (4) the location of any prior site improvements that have been carried out to mitigate abandoned coal mine features; and (5) zones showing varying Ollert>urden-cover-to-seam-thickness ratios, when appropriate. g. a statement as to the relative degree of accuracy and completeness of the maps and information reviewed, especially regarding historic mine map accuracy, and reasons why such sources are considered reliable for the purpose of the hazard assessment report; h." a mitigation plan containing recommendations for mitigation, as appropriate, for the specific proposed alteration; i. recommendations for additional study, reports, development standards or archltectural recommendations for subsequent and more specific proposed alterations, as appropriate; j. analysis and recommendations, if any, of the potential for future trough subsidence and special mitigation; and k. a delineation of coal mine hazard areas for the site under investigation using a map identifying the specific category (i.e., severe, moderate, or dedassified) of mine hazard area. For the purposes of obtaining accurate legal descriptions, the mine hazard areas shall be surveyed and the survey map shall be drawn at a scale of not less than 1 ",00. (King County 9-2004) 21A.24.210 ZONING 3. Giving great weight to the licensing requirements of professional engineers and standards of professional accountability and liability, the department shall review the coal mine hazard assessment report and within the time period specified in K.C.C. 20.20.050 either accept the report, recommend revisions or additions to the report or return the report to the applicant as unaccepted and detail the specific deficiencies. In the event of a disagreement, the applicant may submit the report to a mutually agreed-upon third party professional engineer who will conduct the review and issue a decision binding upon the department and applicant. 4. When a hazard assessment report has been accepted, the applicant shall record a notice on the title of the property as follows: · "NOTICE" "This property is located in an area of historic coal mine activity. A coal mine hazard assessment report has been prepared to characterize the potential hazards contained on this property. The report is dated [insert date of the flflal report], was prepared by pnsert name of professional engineer with license number] al the direction of [insert name of property owner], and reviewed by the King County department of development and environmental services [and, if necessaty, include name of peer reviewing professional engineer with license number]. A review of the report is advised prior to undertaking unregulated or exempt land use activities and is required prior to undertaking regulated land use activities." B. Permitted alterations within a coal mine hazard area are allowed as follows, subject to other King County Code permit requirements: 1. Within declassified coal mine area~ all alterations are permitted. 2. Within moderate coal mine hazard areas and coal mine by-jlroduct stockpiles, all alterations are permitted subject to a mitigation plan to minimize risk of structural damage using appropriate criteria to evaluate the proposed use. If required or recommended by the hazard assessment report, the mitigation plan to address potential trough subsidence must be prepared by a professional engineer and may be included in the coal mine hazard assessment report or may be an additional study or report, as appropriate. 3. Within severe coal mine hazard areas the following alterations are permitted: a. all grading, filling, stockpile removal, and reclamation activities undertaken pursuant to a coal mine hazard assessment report with the intent of eliminating or mitigating threats to human health, p11blic safety, environmental restoration or protection of property, provided that: (1) signed and stamped plans have been prepared by a professional engineer; (2) as-built drawings are prepared following reclamation activities; and (3) the plans and as-built drawings shall be submitted to the department for inclusion with the coal mine hazard assessment report prepared for the property. b. private road construction and maintenance activities, provided that mitigation to eliminate or minimize significant risk of personal injury ar11 incorporated into road construction or maintenance plans. c. buildings with less than four thousand square feet of floor area that contain no living quarters and that are not used as places of employment or public assembly, provided that mitigation to ~iminate or minimize significant risk of personal injury are iricorporated into site, building, and/or landscaping plans. d. adcfrtional land use activities provided that they are consistent with recommendations contained within any mitigation plan required by the hazard assessment report. (Ord. 13319 § 7, 1998: Ord. 11896 § 1, 1995: Ord. 10870 § 468, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-194 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.220 • 21A.24.230 21 A.24.220 Erosion hazard areas: Development standards and pennltted alterations. A. aearing on an erosion hazard area is allowed only from April 1 to September 1, except that: 1. Up to 15,000 square feet may be cleared on any lot, subject to any other requirement for vegetation retention and subject to any clearing and grading permit required by K.C.C. 16.82; and 2. Timber harvest may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the Washington Department of Natural Resources. B. All development proposals on sites containing erosion hazard areas shall include a temporary erosion control plan consistent with this section and other laws and regulations prior to receiving approval. Specific requirements for such plans shall be set forth in administrative rules, C. All subdivisions, short subdivisions or binding site plans on sites with erosion hazard areas shaft comply with the following additional requirements: 1. Except as provided in this section, existing vegetation shall be retained on all lots unbl building permits are approved for development on individual lots; 2. If any vegetation on the lots is damaged or removed during construction of the subdMsion infrastructure, the applicant shall be required to submit a restoration plan to King County for review arid approval. Following approval, the applicant shall be required to implement the plan; 3. Clearing of vegetation on lots may be allowed without a separate clearing and grading pennit if King County determines that: a. such clearing is a necessary part of a large scale grading plan; b. it is not feasible to perform such grading on an individual lot basis; and c. drainage from the graded area will meet water quallty standards to be established by administrative rules. D. Where King County determines that erosion from a development site poses a significant risk of damage to downstream receiving waters, based either on the size of the project, the proximity to the receMng water or the sensitivity of the receiving water, the applicant shall be required to provide regular monitoring of surface water discharge from the site. If the project does not meet water quallty standards established by law or administrative rules, the county may suspend further development work on the site until such standards are met. . E. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in erosion hazard areas may be prohibited by King County. (Ord. 10870 § 469, 1993). 21A.24.230 Rood hazard areas: Components. A. A flood hazard area consists of the following components: 1. Floodplain; 2. Rood fringe; 3. Zero-rise floodway; and 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") floodway. B. King County shall determine the flood hazard area after obtaining, reviewing and utiizing base flood elevations and available floodway data for a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, often referred to as the "100:.year flood." The base flood is determined for existing conditions, unless a basin plan including projected flows under future developed conditions has been completed and adopted by King County, in which case these future flow projections shall be used. In areas where the Rood Insurance Study for King County includes detaffed base flood calculations, those calculations may be used until projections of future flows are completed and approved by King County. (Ord. 10870 § 470, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-195 . .. 21A.24.240 ZONING 21A.24.240 Flood fringe: Development standards and permitted alterations. Development proposals on sites within the flood fringe area shall meet the foHowing requirements: A. Development proposals shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. Grading or other activity which would reduce the effective storage volume shall be mitigated by creating compensatory storage on the site or off the site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage volume will be preserved over time. Grading for construction of _livestock manure storage facilities to control non-point source water pollution designed to the standards of and approved by the King Conservation District is exempt from this compensatory storage requirement. B. All elevated construction shall be designed and certified by a professional structural engineer licensed by the State of Washington and shall be approved by King County prior to construction. C. Subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans shall meet the following requirements: 1. New building lots shall contain 5,000 square feet or more of bulldable land outside the zero-rise floodway, and building setback areas shall be shown on the face of the plat to restrict permanent structures to this buildable area; 2. All utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems shall be located and constructed consistent with subsections 0., E. and H; 3. Base flood data and flood hazard notes shall be shown on the face of the recorded subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan including, but not . limited to, the base flood elevation, required flood protection elevations and the boundaries of the floodplain and the zero-rise floodway, if determined; and 4. The following notice shall also be shown on the face of the recorded subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan for all affected lots: "NOTICE" "Lots and structures located within flood hazard areas may be inaccessible by emergency vehicles during flood events. Residents and property owners should take appropriate advance precautions.• D. New residential structures and substantial improvements of existing residential structures shaU meet the following requirements: 1. The lowest floor shall be elevated to the flood protection elevation; 2. Portions of a structure which are below the lowest floor area shall not be fully enclosed. The areas and rooms below the lowest floor shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic and hydrodynamic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for satisfying this requirement shall meet or exceed the following requirements: a. a minimum of two openings on opposite walls having a total open area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; b. the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and c. openings may be equipped with screens, louvers or other coverings or devices if they permit the unrestricted entry and exit of floodwaters; 3. Materials and methods which are resistant to and minimize flood damage shall be used; and 4. AD. electrical, heating, ventflation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other utility and S8fVice facilities shall be flood-proofed to or elevated above the flood protection elevation. E. New nonresidential structures and substantial improvements pf existing nonresidential structures shall meet the following requirements: 1. The elevation requirement for residential structures contained in subsection 0.1 shall be met; or 2. The structure shall be flood-proofed to the flood protection elevation and shall meet the following requirements: a. the applicant shall provide certification by a professional civil or structural engineer licensed by the State of Washington that the flood-proofing methods are adequate to withstand the flood-deptlis, pressures, velocities, impacts, uplift forces and other factors associated with the base flood. After construction, the engineer shall certify that the permitted work conforms .with the approved plans and speciflcations;and (King County 9-2004) 21A-196 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.240 b. approved building pennits for flood-proofed nonresidential structures shall contain a statement notifying applicants that flood insurance premiums shall be based upon rates for structures which are one foot below the flood-proofed level; · 3. Materials and methods which are resistant to and minimize flood damage shall be used; and 4. All electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other utility and service faci6ties shall be flood-proofed to or elevated above the flood protection elevation. F. All new construction shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure. G. Mobile homes and mobie home parks shall meet the following requirements: 1. Mobile homes shall meet all requirements for flood hazard protection for residential structures, shall be anchored and shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage; and 2. No permit or approval for the following shall be granted unless all mobile homes within the mobile home park meet the requirements for flood hazard protection for residential structures: a. a new mobile home park; b. an expansion of an existing mobile home park; or c .. any repair or reconstruction of streets, uUlities or pads in an· existing mobile home park which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the value of such streets, utilities or pads. H. Utillties shall meet the following requirements. 1. New and replacement utilities including, but not limlted to, sewage treatment facilities shall be flood..proofed to or elevated above the flood protection elevation; 2. New Oil-Site sewage disposal systems shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limlts of the base flood elevation. The installation of new on-site sewage disposal systems in the flood fringe may be allowed if no feasible alternative site is available; 3. Sewage and agricultural waste storage facillties shall be flood-proofed to the flood protection elevation; 4. Above-ground utility transmission lines, other than electric transmission lines, shall only be allowed for the transport of non-hazardous substances; and 5. Buried utility transmission lines transporting hazardous substances shall be buried at a minimum depth of four feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood, as predicted by a professional civil engineer licensed by the State of Washington, and shall achieve sufficient negative buoyancy so that any PQtential for flotation or upward migration is eliminated. I. Critical facilities may be allowed within the flood fringe of the floodplain, but only when no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities shall be evaluated through the conditional or special use pennit process. Critical facilities constructed within the flood fringe shall have the lowest floor elevated to three or more feet above the base flood elevation. Flood-proofing and sealing measures shall be taken to ensure that hazardous substances wlll not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facffities from the nearest maintained public street or roadway. J. Prior to approving any pennit for alterations in the flood fringe, King County shan determine that all pennlts required by state or federal law have been obtained. (Ord. 11621 § 76, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 471, 1993). • (King County 9-2004) 21A-197 21A.24.250 ZONING 21A24.250 Zero-rise floodway: Development standards a.nd permitted alterations. A. The requirements which apply to the flood fringe shall also apply to the zero-rise floodway. The more restrictive requirements shall apply where there is a conflict. B. A development proposal including, but not limlted to, new or reconstructed structures shall not cause any increase in the base flood elevation unless the following requirements are met: 1. Amendments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map are adopted by FEMA, in accordance with 44 CFR 70, to incorporate the increase in the base flood elevation; and 2. Appropriate legal documents are prepared in which au property owners affected by the increased flood elevations consent to the impacts on their property. These documents shall be filed wfth the title of record for the affected properties. C. The following are presumed to produce no increase in base flood elevation and shall not require a special study to establish this fact: 1. New residential structures outside the FEMA floodway on lots in existence before November 27, 1990 which contain less than 5,000 square feet of buildable land outside the zero-rise floodway and which have a total buiding footprint of all proposed structures on the lot of less than 2,000 square feet 2. Substantial improvements of existing residential structures in the zero-rise floodway, but outside the FEMA floodway, where the footprint is not increased; or 3. Substantial improvements of existing residential structures meeting the requirements for new residential structures in K.C.C. 21A.24.240. D. Post or pmng construction techniques which permit water flow beneath a structure shall be used. E. All temporary structures or substances hazardous to public health, safety and welfare, except for hazardous household substances or consumer products containing hazardous substances, shall be removed from the zerer-rise floodway during the flood season from September 30 to May 1. F. New residential structures or any· structure accessory to a residential use shall meet the following requirements: 1. The structures shaR be outside the FEMA floodway; and 2. The structures shall be on lots in existence before November 27, 1990 which contain less than 5000 square feet of bulldable land outside the zero-rise floodway. G. Utilities may be allowed within the zero-rise floodway if King County determines that no feasible alternative site is available, subject to the following requirements: 1. Installation of new on-site sewage disposal systems shall be prohibited unless a waiver is granted by the Seatlle/King County department of public health; and 2. Construction of sewage treatment facilities shall be prohibited. H. Critical facilities shaQ not be allowed within the zerer-rise floodway except as provided in subsection J. I. Livestock manure storage facilities and associated non-point source water pollution facilities designed, constructed and maintained to the standards of and approved in a conservation plan by the King County Conservation District may be allowed if King County reviews and approves the location and design of the facilities. · J. Structures and installations which are dependent upon· the floodway may be located in the floodway if the development proposal is approved by all agencies with jurisdiction. Such structures include, but are not limlted to: 1. Dams or diversions for water supply, flood control, hydroelectric production, irrigation or fisheries enhancement; 2. Flood damage reduction facillties, such as levees and pumping stations; 3. Stream bank stabilization structures where no feasible alternative exists for protecting public or privale property; 4. Storm water conveyance facilities sul>ject to the development standards for streams and wetlands and the Surface Water Design Manual; 5. Boat launches and related recreation structures; 6. Bridge piers and al>utments; and 7. Other fisheries enhancement or stream restoration projects. (Ord. 10870 § 472, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-198 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.260 -21A.24.280 21A.24.260 FEMA floodway: Development standards and permitted alterations. A. The requirements which apply to the zero-rise floodway shaH also apply to the FEMA floodwaY: The more restrictive requirements shaU apply where there is a conflict. B. A development proposal including, but not limlted to, new or reconstructed structures shall not cause any increase in the base flood elevation. C. New residential or nonresidential structures are prohibited within the FEMA floodway. D. Substantial improvements of existing residential structures in the FEMA floodway, meeting the requirements of WAC 173-158-070, as amended, are presumed to produce no increase in base flood elevation and shall not require a special study to establish this fact. (Ord. 10870 § 473, 1993). 21A.24.270 Flood hazard areas: Certification by engineer or surveyor. A. For all new structures or substantial improvements in a flood hazard area, the applicant shall provide certification by a professional civil engineer or land surveyor licensed by the Stale of Washington of: 1. The actual as-built elevation of the lowest floor, including basement and 2. The actual as-built elevation to which the structure is flood-proofed, if applicable. B. The engineer or surveyor shall indicate if the structure has a basement. C. King County shall maintain the certifications required by this section for public inspection. (Ord. · 10870 § 474, 1993). 21A.24.275 Channel relocation and stream meander areas. No structure shall be allowed which would be at risk due to channel relocalion or stream meander untU the promulgation of a public rule. (Ord. 11621 § 75. 1994). 21A.24.2BO Landslide hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A development proposal on a site containing a landslide hazard area shall meet the foUowing requirements: A. A minimum buffer of 50 feet shall be established from all edges of the landslide hazard area. The buffer shall be extended as required to mitigate a steep slope or erosion hazard or as otherwise necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. For landslide hazard areas that are also sleep slopes over 200 feet in height. the building setback shall be 50 feet from the buffer. The building setback may be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet from the buffer if, based on a special study, King County determines that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development and the sensitive area. For single family residential building permits only, King County may waive the special study requirement and authorize building setback reductions, pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.075 or if King County determines tt,at the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development and the sensitive area; B. Unless otherwise provided herein or as part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation from a landslide hazard area or buffer shall be prohibited, except for Jim~ed removal of vegetation necessary for surveying purposes and for the removal of hazard trees determined to be unsafe according to tree selection rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter. Notice to King County shall be provided prior to any . vegetation removal permitted by this subsection; C. Vegetation on slopes within a landslide hazard area or buffer which has been damaged by human activity or infested by noxious weeds may be replaced with vegetation native to King County pursuant to an enhancement plan approved by King County. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in landslide hazard areas and their buffers may be prohibited by King County; and D. Alterations to landslide hazard areas and buffers may be allowed only as follows: 1. A landslide hazard area located on a slope 40% or steeper may be altered only if the alteration meets the standards and limitations set forth for steep slope hazard areas in K.C.C. 21A.24.310; 2. A landslide hazard area located on a slope less than 40% may be altered only if the alteration meets the foDowing requirements: a. the development proposal wil not decrease slope stability on contiguous properties; and . b. mitigation based on the best available engineering and geotogical practices is implemented which either eliminates or minimizes the risk of damage, death or injury resulting from landslides; and 3. Neither buffers nor a sensitive area tract shall be required if the alteration meets the standards of subsection D.2. (Ord. 12822 § 9, 1997: Ord. 10870 § 475, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-199 21A.24.290 -21A.24.310 . ZONING 21A.24.290 Seismic hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A development proposal on a site containing a seismic hazard area shall meet the following requirements: A Unless exempt, development proposals shall be subject to review standards based on two occupancy types: critical facilities and other structures. The review standards for critical facilities shall be based on larger earthquake reoccurrence intervals. The review standards for both occupancy types shall be set forth in administrative rules; B. Alterations to seismic hazard areas may be allowed only as follows: 1. The evaluation of site-specific subsurface conditions shows that the proposed development site is not located in a seismic hazard area; or 2. Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geological practices is implemented which either eliminates or minimizes the risk of damage, death or injury resulting from seismically induced settlement or soil liquefaction; and 3. Mobile homes may be placed in seismic hazard areas without performing special studies to address the seismic hazard. Such mobile homes may be subject to special support and tie-down requirements. These requirements shall be set forth in administrative rules. C. Buildings with less than 2500 square feet of floor area or roof area (whichever Is greater) that contain no living quarters and that are not used as places of employment or public assembly exempt from the provisions of this section. (Ord. 10870 § 476, 1993). 21A.24.300 Volcanic hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A development proposal on a site containing a volcanic hazard area shall meet the following requirements: A. Within volcanic hazard areas located along the White River upstream from Mud Mountain Dam: 1. No critical facilities shall be constructed or located; 2. No new apartments, 'townhouses or commercial structures shall be constructed or located; 3. All new lots created by subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan shall require building areas outside of the volcanic hazard area which shall be desig,ated with building setback areas; and 4. New single detached residential construction on existing lots may be allowed if the applicant records with the records and elections division the following notice on all tltle documents: "NOTICE" "The structures on this properly are located in an area which may be Inundated by mudllows originating on Mount Rainier. For further information regarding this hazard, please contact King County"; B. Within volcanic hazard areas located along the White River downstream from Mud Mountain Dam and Green and Duwamlsh Rivers: critical facillties shall be evaluated for risk of inundation or flooding resuijing from mudllows ()riginatlng on Mount Rainier. These structures shall be designed to withstand, without damage, the effects of mudllows equal in magnitude to the prehistoric Electron Mudllow; and C. This section shall not become effective untl King Counly has completed the required modeling and mapping of volcanic hazard areas. (Ord. 10870 § 4n, 1993). 21A.24.310 Steep slope hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A development proposal on a site containing a steep slope hazard area shaR meet the following requirements: A. A minimum buffer of fifty feel shall be established from the top, toe and along all sides of any slope forty percent or steeper. The buffer shall be extended as required to mitigate a landslide or erosion hazard or as otherwise necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of ten feet if, based on a special study, King County determines that the reduction will · adequately protect the proposed development and the sensitive area. The buffer may only be reduced to twenty-five feet in the case of erosion hazard areas. For single family residential building permits only, King County may waive the special study requirement and authorize buffer reductions, pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.075 or if King County determines that the reduction will adequately proteci the proposed develiopment and the sensijive area; (King County 9-2004) 21A-200 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.310 B. Unless otherwise provided herein or as part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation from a steep slope hazard area or buffer shall be prohibited, except for limited removal of vegetation necessary for surveying purposes and for the removal of hazard trees determined to be unsafe according to tree selection rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter: Notice to King County shall be provided prior to any vegetation removal permitted by this subsection; C. Vegetation on steep. slopes within steep slope hazard areas or their buffers which has been damaged by human activity or infested by noxious weeds may be replaced with vegetation native to King County pursuant to a vegetation management plan approved by King County. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in steep slope hazard areas and their buffers may be prohibited by King County; · D. Alterations to steep slope hazard areas and buffers may be allowed only as follows: 1. Approved surface water conveyances, as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual, may be allowed on steep slopes if they are installed in a manner to minimize disturbance to the slope and vegetation; 2. Public and private trails may be allowed on steep slopes as approved by the county. Under no circumstances shall trails be constructed of concrete, asphalt or other impervious surfaces which will contribute to surface water run-off, unless such construction is necessary for soil stabilization or soil erosion prevention or unless the trail system is specifically designed and intended to be accessible to handicapped persons. Additional requirements for trail construction may be set for1h in administrative rules; 3. Utility corridors may be allowed on steep slopes if a special study shows that such alteration will not subject the area to the risk of landslide or erosion; 4. Limited trimming and pruning of vegetation may be aHowed on steep slopes pursuant to an approved vegetation management plan for the creation and maintenance of views if the soils are not disturbed and the activity is subject to administrative rules; · · 5. Awroved mining and quarrying activities may be allowed; and 6. Stabilization of sites where erosion or landsliding threaten public or private structlB'es, utilities, roads, driveways or trails, or where erosion and landsliding threatens any lake, stream, wetland or shoreline. Stabilization work shall be performed in a manner which causes the least possible disturbance to the slope and its vegetative cover; and 7. Reconstruction, remodeling or replacement of existing structures. Reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of an existing structure upon another por1ion of an existing impervious surface which was established pursuant to King County laws and regulations may be allowed provided: · a. if within the buffer, the structure is located no closer to the steep slope than the existing structure, b. the existing impervious surface within the buffer or steep slope is not expanded as a result of the reconstruction or replacement. E. Point discharges from surface water facilities onto or upstream from steep slope hazard areas that are also erosion hazard areas shall be prohibited except as foHows: 1. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard areas downstream from the discharge; · 2. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater runoff in the predevelopment state; or 3. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low-gradient undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to Infiltrate an surface and stormwater runoff. F. The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: 1. Slopes which are forty percent or steeper with a vertical elevation change of up to twenty feet if no adverse impact will result from the exemption based on King County's review of and concurrence with a soils report prepared by a geologist or geotechnical engineer; and 2. The approved regrading of any slope which was created through previous legal {Tading activities. Any slope which remains forty percent or steeper foHowing site development shall be subject to an requirements for steep slopes. (Ord. 13190 § 21, 1998: Ord. 11621 § 77, 1994: Ord. 11273 § 5, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 478, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-201 r·"J) \) ,;; t 4: 7, \ <.. ·)1 lp '3 '0 21A.24.320 -21A.24.330 ZONING 21A24.320 Wetlands: Development standards. A development proposal on a site containing a wetland shall meet the following requirements: A. The following minimum buff shall be established from the weUand edge: 1. A class 1 wetland shall h e a 100-foot buffer; 2. A class 2 wetland shall e a 50-foot buffer; 3. A class 3 wetland shall ve a 25-foot buffer; 4. Any wetland restored relocated, replaced or enhanced because of a weUand aneration shall have the minimum buffer required or the highest wetland class involved; and . 5. Any wetland within 2 feet of the toe of a slope 30% or steeper, but less than 40%, shall have: a. the minimum buff~ required for the wetland class involved or a 25-fool buffer beyond the top of the slope, whichever is greater/ if the horizontal length of the slope including small benches and terraces is Within the buffer for that wetlz' class; or b. a 25-foot buff r beyond the minimum buffer required for the wetland class involved if the horizontal length of the slo including small benches and terraces extends beyond the buffer for that weUand class; ; B. Buffer width ayeraging may be allowed by King County if it will provide additional protection to wetlands or enhance their functions, as long as the total area contained in the buffer on the development proposal site does not de¢rease; C. Increased boffler widths shall be required by King County when necessary to protect wetlands. Provisions for additional/buffer widths shall be contained in administrative rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter including, but i;iot limited to, provisions pertaining to critical drainage areas, location of hazardous substances, critical fl$ and wildlife habitat, landslide or erosion hazard areas contiguous to wetlands, groundwater recharge /md discharge and the location of trail or utility corridors; · D. The use. of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in the wetland and its buffer may be prohibited by King Co~nty; E. Unless o)herwise provided, the following restrictions shall apply to all development proposals which include the introduction of livestock: I t.,--, 1. To prevert damage to class 1 and 2 wetlands: a. a plan lo protect and enhance the wetland's water quality shall be implemented pursuant to f'\j I (\r\ 21 A.30; orb. fencingt;· ed not closer than the buffer edge shall be-required; and 2. Standard pertaining to access to streams for watering purposes, stream crossing requirements and use of natural ba and vegetative buffering in lieu of fencing shall be included in administrative rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter; F. The livestock restrictions contained in subsection E. shall not apply to wetlands defined as grazed wet meadows, regardless of their classification. (Ord. 10870 § 479, 1993). · 21A24.330 Wetlands: Permitted alterations. Alterations to wetlands and buffers may be allowed pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.075 or as follows: A. Alterations may be permitted if King County detennines, based upon Its review of special studies completed by qualified professionals, that: 1. The wetland does not serve any of the valuable functions. of wetlands identified in K.C.C. 21A.06.1415 including, but not limited to, biologic and hydrologic funclions; or 2. The proposed development will; a. protect, restore or enhance the wildlife habitat, natural drainage or other valuable functions of the wetland resulting in a net improvement to the functions of the wetland system; b. develop a plan for its design, implementation, maintenance and monitoring prepared by a civil engineer and a quardled biologist; c. perform the restoration or enhancement under the direction of a quarmed biologist; and d. will otherwise be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (King County 9-2004) 21A-202 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.330 B. To establish the conditions in subsection A., detailed studies may be required as part of the special study on habitat value, hydrology, erosion and deposition and/or water quality. Such detailed studies shall include specific recommendations for mitigation which may be required as a condition of. any development proposal approval. The recommenda · ns may include, but are not limited to, construction techniques or design, drainage or density specifications; C. If a wettand is in a flood hazard area, the applicant shall notify affected com nities and native tribes of proposed alterations prior to any alteration and submit evidence of such lion to the F~I Insurance Administration; D. There shall be no introduction of any plant or wildlife which is not indi_genous to King County into any wetland or buffer unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval;/ E. Utilities may be allowed in wetland buffers if: / ... 1. King County determines that no practical alternative location is.,available;· and 2. The utility corridor meets any additional requirements set f9rth in administrative rules including, but not limited to, requirements for installation, replacement of vege.tat)Pii and maintenance; F. Sewer utility corridors may be allowed in wetland buffers )inly If: · 1. The applicant demonstrates that sewer lines are nec~sary for gravity flow; 2. The corridor is not located in a wetland or buffp used by species listed as endangered or threatened by the state_ or federal govei:nment or containin_ircritical or outstanding actual habitat for those spec,es or heron rookenes or raptor nesting trees; ; · . 3. The corridor alignment including, but not lin'iited to, any aliowed maintenance roads follows a path beyond a distance equal to seventy-five of the buffer width from the wetland edge; 4. Corridor construction and maintenance ,protects the wetland and buffer and is aligned to avoid cutting trees greater than twelve inches in dial)l'eter at breast height, when possible, and pesticides, herbicides and other hazardous substances are n_ot used; 5. An additional, contiguous and undisturbed buffer, equal in width to the proposed corridor inducting any allowed maintenance roads, is p,rbvided to protect.the wetland; 6. The corridor is revegetated wilhlappropriate vegetation native to King County at pre-construction densities or greater immediately upon con;it>letion of construction or as soon thereafter as possible, and the sewer utility ensures that such vegetation~urvives; 7. Any additional corridor acp6s for maintenance is provided, to the extent possible, al specifJC points rather than by a parallel road; af! . · · 8. The width of any n8C!l5sary parallel road providing access for maintenance is as small as possible, but not greater than mteer'i feet, the road is maintained without the use of herbicides, pesticides or other hazardous substances and the location of the road Is contiguous to the utility corridor on the side away from the wetland; / G. Joint use of an approved sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed. H. The following surface water management activities and faet1illes may be allowed in weflands or their buffers only as follows: 1. Surface water discharge to a wetland from a flow control or water quality treatment faciity, sediment pond or other surface water management activity or facility may be allowed If the discharge does not increase the rate of flow. change the plant composition· in a forested wetland or decrease the water quality of the wetland; 2. A dass 1, 2 or 3 wetland or buffer may be used for a regional retention/detention facility ii: a. a public agency and ub1ity exception is granted pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.070; b. all ~\Jlrements of the Surface Water Design Manual are met; c. the use will not alter the rating or the factors used in rating the wetland; d. the proposal is In compliance with the latest adopted findings of the Puget Sound Wetlands Research Project; and e. there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland; (King County 9--2004) 21A-203 • 21A.24.330 ZONING 3. Isolated class 3 wetlands and buffers which are grazed wet meadows may be used as a flow control facility if: a. presettlement pond or water quality treatment is required prior to flow into the wetland, and b. they are not part of, or immediately adjacent to, an LSRA, RSRA or a designated wildlife habitat corridor and all requirements of the Surface Water Design Manual are met; and 4. Use of a wetland buffer for a surface water management activity or fac:lllty, other than a flow control or water quality treatment facility, such as an energy dissipater and associated pipes, may be allowed only if the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of King County, that: a. no practicable alternative exists; and b. the functions of the buffer or the wetland are not adversely affected; I. Public and private trails may be allowed in wetland buffers only upon adoption of administrative rules consistent with the following: 1. The !raff surface shall not be made of impervious materials, except that public multi-purpose trails such as the Burke-Gilman Trail may be made of impervious materials if they ·meet all other requirements including water quality; and 2. Buffers shall be expanded, where possible, equal to the width of the traH corridor including disturbed areas; J. A dock, pier, moorage, float or launch facility may be allowed, subject to the provisions of K.C.C. Title 25, if: 1. The existing and zoned density around the wetland is three dwelling units per acre or more; 2. At least seventy-five percent of the lots around the wetland have been built upon and no significant buffer or wetland vegetation remains on these lots; and 3. Open water Is a significant component of the wetland; K. Alterations to Isolated wetlands may be allowed only as follows: 1. On sites of less than twenty acres in size, one isolated wetland may be altered by relocating Its functions into a new wetland on the site pursuant to an approved mitigation plan; 2. On sites twenty acres or greater in size, up to three isolated weUands may be altered by combining their functions into one or more replacement wetlands on the site pursuant to an approved mitigation plan; and 3. Whenever an isolated wetland is altered pursuant to this subsection, the replacement wetland shall include enhancement for wildlife habitat; L One additional agricultural building or associated residence may be allowed within the wetland buffer on a grazed wet meadow if all hydrologic storage is replaced on the site; M. Subject to a clearing and gading permit issued pursuant to K.C.C. chapter 16.82, the cutting of up to one cord of firewood may be permitted in buffers of five acres or larger in any year if the overall function of the buffer is not adversely affected. Removal of brush may also be permitted for the purpose of enhancing tree growth if the area of removal is limlted to the diameter of the tree canopy at the time of planting; and N. Wetland road crossings may be allowed if: 1. King County determines that no alternative access is practical; 2. All crossings minimize impact to the wetland and provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts through restoration, enhancement or replacement of disturbed areas; 3. Crossings do not change the overall wetland hydrology; 4. Crossings do not diminish-the flood storage capacity of the wetland; and 5. All crossings are constructed during summer low water periods. 0. Reconstruction, remodeffng, or replacement of existing structures. Reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of an existing structure upon another portion of an existing impervious surface which· was established pursuant to King County laws and regulations may be allowed provided: 1. If within the buffer, the structure is located no closer to the wetland than the existing structure, 2. The existing impervious surface within the buffer or wetland is not expanded as a result of the reconstruction or replacement. (King County 9-2004) 21A-204 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENS,, ,JE AREAS 21A.24.330 -21A.24.340 P. Wetland enhancement or restoration not associated with any other development proposal may be allowed if accomplished according to a plan for its design, implementation, maintenance and monitoring prepared by a civil engineer and a qualified biologist and carried out under the direction of a qualified biologist. Restoration or enhancement must result in a net improvement lo the functions of the wetland system; and Q. A minor wetland restoration project for fish habitat enhancement may be allowed if: -1_ -z, S 1. The restoration is sponsored by a public agency with a mandate to do such work; 7 2. The restoration is not associated with mitigation of a specific development proposal; 3. The restoration is limited to revegetation of wetlands and their buffers and other specific fish and wildlife habitat improvements that result in a net improvement to the functions of the wetland system; 4. The restoration only involves the use of hand labor and light equipment. or ihe use of helicopters and cranes which deliver supplies lo the project site provided that they have no contact with sensitive areas or their buffers; and 5. The restoration is performed under the direction of a qualified biologist. (Ord. 13190 § 22, 1998: Ord. 11621 § 78, 1994: Ord. 11273 § 6, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 480, 1993). 21A.24.340 Wetlands: mitigation requirements. A. Restoration shaH be required if a wetland or its buffer is altered in vioiatipn of law or wtthout any specific permission or approval by King County. The following minimum requirements shaH be met for the restoration of a wetland: 1. The · original wetland configuration shall be replicated including tts depth, width, length and gradient al the original location; 2. The original soil type and configuration shall be replicated; 3. The wetland edge and buffer configuration shall be restored to tts original condition; 4. The wetland, edge and buffer shall be replanted with vegetation native to King County that replicates the original vegetation in species, sizes and densities; and 5. The original _wetland functions shall be restored induding, but not limited to, hydrologic and biologic functions. B. The requirements in subsection A. of this section may be modified if the applicant demonstrates that greater wetland functions can otherwise be obtained. C. Replacement shall be required if a buffer is altered under an approved development proposal or a wetland is used for a regional flow control facility or other approved use. The requirements for the restoration of wetlands shall be met by replacement wetlands. D. Enhancement may be allowed if a wetland or buffer will be altered under to a development proposal, but the wetland's biologic and/or hydrologic functions will be improved. Minimum requirements for enhancement shall be established in administrative rules. E. All alterations of wetlands shall be replaced or enhanced on the site or within the same drainage basin using the following formulas: class 1 and 2 wetlands on a two-lo-one basis and class 3 wetlands on a one-lo-one basis with equivalent or greater biologic functions including, but not limited to, habitat functions and with equivalent hydrologic functions induding, but not timtted to, storage capacity. F. Replacement or enhancement off the site may be allowed if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of King County that the off-site location is in the same drainage sub-basin as the original wetland and that greater biologic and hydrologic functions will be achieved. The formulas In subsection E of this section shaN apply to replacement and enhancement off the site. G. Surface water management or flood control alterations including, but not limited to, wetponds shan not constitute replacement or enhancement unless other functions are simultaneously improved. H. Mitigalion sites should be localed to alleviate wildlife habftal fragmentation and avoid impacts to and prevent loss of farmable land within agricultural production districts. (Ord. 14045 § 48, 2001: Ord. 13190 § 23, 1998: Ord. 11621 § 79, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 481, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-205 21 A.24.345 -21 A.24.360 ZONING 21A.24.345 Wetlands: mitigation banking. King County . may consider and approve replacement or enhancement of unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands caused by the development activities through an approved wetland mitigation bank. Wetland mitigation banking is not aUowed in the agricultural production districts if the purpose is to compensate for filing wetlands for development outside of the agricultural production districts. Compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts must be provided through an approved mitigation bank. Criteria governing the creation and use of a mitigation bank shall be established in administrative rules. A pHot project or projects, complete with evaluation should be initiated that would test the viability of the mitigation bank concept before to its full implementation. (Ord. 14045 § 49, 2001: Ord. 11621 § 72, 1994). 21A.24.350 Wetlands: Limited exemption. Isolated wetlands less than 1000 square feet may be exempted from the provisions of K.C.C. 21A.24.320 -21A.24.340 and may be altered by filling or dredging if King County determines that the cumulative impacts do not unduly counteract the purposes of this chapter and are mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan. (Ord. 10870 § 482, 1993). '-...-·, 21A.24.360 Streams: Development standards. A development proposal on a site containing a 0_, ' ['•stream shall m~e following requirements: . · , ~ A The allowing minimum buffers shall be established from the ordinary high water mark or from the '\".;1 top of the bank · the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified: 1. A cl s 1 stream shall have a 100-foot buffer; 2. A 2 stream used by salmonids shall have a 100-foot buffer; . 3. A c~ 2 stream shall have a 50-foot buffer; 4. A cla915 3 stream shall have a 25-foot buffer; 5. In the ~ear Creek Basin, class 1 and 2 streams used by salmonids, shall have a 150-foot buffer; 6. In the ~r Creek Bas.in, a class 2 stream not used by salmon ids, shaU have a 100-foot buffer; 7. In the ~ar .creek Basin, a class 3 stream shall have a 50-foot buffer except In designated regionally significant ~esource areas where a class 3 stream shall have a 100-foot buffar; .8. Any stre~m restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced because of a stream alteration shall have the minimum buffer rllfluired for the stream class involved; 9. Any stream with an ordinary high water mark within 25 feet of the toe of a slope 30% or steeper, but less than 40%, shall have: · a. the minlrrl,um buffer required for the stream class involved or a 25-foot buffer beyond the top d · the slope, whichever is ~realer, if the horizontal length of the slope including small benches and terraces is within the buffer for that s,tream class; or b. a 25-foot buffer beyond the minimum buffer required for the stream class involved if the horizontal length of the sldpe including smaU benches and terraces extends beyond the buffer for that stream class; and , 10, Any stream adjoined by a riparian wetland or other contiguous sensitive area shaU have the buffer required for the stream class involved or the buffer which applies to the wetland or other sensitive area, whichever is greater; B. Buffer width averaging may be allowed by King County if ii will provide additional natural resource protection, as long as. the total area contained in the buffer on the development proposal site does not decrease; C. Increased buffer widths shall be required by Klng County when necessary to protect streams. Provisions for additional buffer widths shall be contained in administrative rules· promulgated pursuant to this chapter including, but not limited to, critical drainage areas, location of hazardous substances, aitical fish and wildlife habitat, landslide or erosion hazard areas contiguous to streams, groundwater recharge and discharge and the location of trail or utility corridors; D. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in the stream corridor and ns buffer may be prohibited by King County; and E. The livestock restrictions in K.C.C. 21A.24.320 shall also apply to class 1 and 2 streams and their buffers except that barrier fencing shall not be required in the floodplain of the Snoqualmie River. (Ord. 12015 § 4, 1995: Ord. 10870 § 483, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-206 ENVIRONMENTALLY SEN::.11 IVE AREAS 21A.24.370 21A.24.370 Streams: Pennitted alterations. Alterations to streams and buffers may be aDowed pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.075 or as follows: A. Alterations may only be permitted if based upon a special study; B. The applicant shall notify affected communities and native tribes of proposed alterations prior to any alteration if a stream is in a flood hazard area and shall submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration; C. There shall be no introduction of any plant or wildlife which is not indigenous to King County into any stream or buffer unless authorized by a state or federal perm It or approval; D. Utilities may be allowed in .stream buffers if: · .. / / 1. No practical alternative location is available; 2. The utmty corridor meets any additional requirements set forth in administrativ rules including, bu1 not limlted to, requirements for installation, replacement of vegetation and maintenan , and 3. The requirements for sewer utility corridors in K.C.C. 21A.24.330 shall o apply to streams; 4. Joint use of an approved sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be E. The following surface water management activities and facilitates buffers as follows: lk>Wed; ay be allowed in stream 1. Surface water discharge to a stream from a flow control or sediment pond or other surface water management activity or facility may compliance with the Surface Water Design Manual; ter quallty treatment facillty, allowed if the discharge is in 2. A class 2 stream or buffer may be used for a regional storm er management facillty if: a. a public agency.and utlllty exception is granted pursuan~t K.C.C. 21A.24.070; b. all requirements. of the Surface Water Design Manual ar met; c. the use will not alter the rating or the factors used in ray the stream; d. there are no significant adverse impacts to the strea , and 3. A class 3 stream or buffer may be used as a reg· al stormwater management facility if the alteration will have no lasting adverse impact on any stream nd all requirements of the Surface Water Design Manual are met; F. Except as provided in subsection G, public and · ate trails may be allowed in stream buffers only upon adoption of administrative rules consistent with the oDowing: 1. The trail surface shall not be made of im us materials, except that public mulfi..purpose trails such as the Burke-Gilman Trail may be made f impervious materials If they meet all other requirements including water quallty; and 2. Buffers shall be expanded, where possi~ e, equal to the width of the traH corridor including disturbed areas; ~ · G. Stream crossings may be allowed and m encroach on the otherwise required stream buffer if: 1. All crossings use bridges or other cons ction techniques which do not disturb the stream bed or bank, except that bottomless culverts or other ppropriate methods demonstrated to provide fisheries protection may be used for class 2 or 3 streams 1· the applicant demonstrates that such methods and their implementation will pose no harm to the stream or nhibit migration of fish; 2 All crossing are constructed~uri the summer low flow and are timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when use is critical t salmonids; 3. Crossings do not occur over sal onid spawning areas unless King County determines that no other possible crossing site exists; · 4. Bridge piers or abutments are not placed within the FEMA floodway or the ordinary high water mark; 5. Crossings d<l not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the stream; 6. Underground utillty crossings are laterally drilled and located at a depth of four feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood predicted by a civil engineer licensed by the state of Washington. Temporary bore pits to perform such crossings may be permitted within the stream buffer estabffshed in K.C.C. 21A.24.360. Crossing of Class 3 streams when dry may be made with open cuts; and 7. Crossings are minimized and serve multiple purposes and properties whenever possible; (King County 9-2004) 21A-207 21A.24.370 ZONING H. Stream relocations may be allowed only for: 1. Class 2 streams as part of a public road project for which a public agency and utility exception is granted pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.050; and 2. Class 3 streams for the purpose of enhancing resources in the stream if: a. appropriate floodplain protection measures are used; and b. the relocation occurs on the site, except that relocation off the site may be allowed if the applicant demonstrates that any on-site relocation is impracticable, the applicant provides all necessary easements and waivers from affected property owners and the off-site location is in the same drainage sub- basin as the original stream; I. For any relocation allowed by this section, the applicant shall demonstrate, based on information provided by a civil engineer and a qualified biologist, that: 1.The equivalent base flood storage volume and function will be maintained; 2. There will be no adverse impact to local groundwater; 3. There will be no increase in velocity; 4. There will be no interbasin transfer of water; 5. There will be no increase in sediment load; 6. Requirements set out in the mitigation plan are met; 7. The relocation conforms to other applicable Jaws~ and 8. All work wm be carried out under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist; J. A stream channel may be stabilized if: 1. Movement of the stream channel threatens existing residential or commercial structures, public facilities or improvements, unique natural resources or the only existing access to property; and 2. The stabBization is done in compliance with the requirements of K.C.C. 21A24.230 through 21A.24.270 and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter; K. Stream enhancement not associated with any other development proposal may be allowed if accomplished according to a plan for its design, implementation, maintenance and monitoring prepared by a civO engineer and a qualified biologist and carried out under the direction of a qualified biologist; L. A minor stream restoration project for fish habitat enhancement may be allowed if: 1. The restoration is sponsored by a public agency with a mandate to do such work; 2. The restoration is unassociated with mitigation of a specific development proposal; 3. The restoration is limlted to placement of rock wiers, log controls, spawning gravel and other specific salmonid habitat improvements; 4. The restoration only involves the use of hand labor and light equipment; or the use of helicopters and cranes which deliver supplies to the project site provided that they have no contact with sensitive areas or their buffers; and 5. The restoration is performed under the direction of a qualified biologist; M. Roadside and agricultural drainage ditches which carry streams with salmonids may be maintained through the use of best management practices developed in consultation with relevant county, state and federal agencies. These practices shall be adopted as administrative rules; N. Subject to a dearing and grading permit issued pursuant to K.C.C. 16.82, the cutting of up to one cord of firewood may be permitted in buffers of five acres or larger in any year if the overall function of the buffer is not adversely affected. Removal of brush may also be permitted for the purpose of enhancing tree growth if the area of removal is limited to the diameter of the tree canopy at~ time of planting. 0. Reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of existing structures. Reconstruction, remodeling. or replacement of an existing structure upon another portion of an existing impervious surface which was established pursuant to King County laws and regulations may be allowed provided: 1. If within the buffer, the structure is located no closer to the stream than the existing structure, 2. The existing impervious surface within the buffer or stream is not expanded as a result of the reconstruction or replacement. (Ord. 13190 § 24, 1998: Ord. 11621 § 80, 1994: Ord. 11273 § 7, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 484, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-208 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENS1 1 IVE AREAS 21A.24.380 -21A.24.420 21A24.380 Streams: Mitigation requirements. A. Restoration shall be required when a stream or its buffer is altered in violation of law or without any specific permission or approval by King County. A mitigation plan for the restoration shall demonstrate that: 1. The stream has been degraded and will not be further degraded by the restoration activity; 2. The restoration wiH reliably and demonstrably improve the water quality and fish and wHdlife haMat of the stream; 3. The restoration wHI have no lasting significant adverse impact on any stream functions; and 4. The restoration will assist in stabilizing the stream channel. B. The foUowing minimum requirements shall be met for the restoration of a stream: 1. All work shall be carried out under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist; 2. Basin analysis shall be performed to determine hydrologic conditions; 3. The natural channel dimensions shall be replicated including its depth, width, length and gradient at the original location, and the original horizontal alignment (meander lengths) shall be replaced; 4. The bottom shall be restored with identical or similar materials; 5. The bank and buffer configuration shall be restored to its original condition; 6. The channel, bank and buffer areas shall be replanted with vegetation native to King County which replicates the original vegetation in species, sizes and densities; and 7. The original biologic functions of the stream shall be recreated. C. The requirements in subsection B. may be modified if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of King County that a greater biologic function can otherwise be obtained; D. Replacement or enhancement shall be required when a stream or buffer is altered pursuant to an approved development proposal. There shall be no net loss of stream functions on a development proposal site and no impact on stream functions above or below the site due to approved alterations. E. The requirements which apply to the restoration of streams in subsection B. shall also apply to the relocation of streams, unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of King County that a greater biologic function can be obtained by modifying these requirements. F. Replacement or enhancement for appmved stream alterations shall be accomplished iri streams and on the stte unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of King County that: 1. Enhancement or replacement on the site is not possible;· 2. The off-site location is in the same drainage sub-basin as the original stream; and 3. Greater biologic and hydrologic functions will be achieved. . ..... G. Surface water management or flood control alterations shall not be considered enhancement ~ 8 , :_,_..,. unless other functions are simultaneously improved. (Ord. 10870 § 485, 1993). 21A24.390 Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Creation of fund. There is hereby created a Sensitive Areas Mitigation Fund. This fund shall be administered by the King County Office of Finance. (Ord. 10870 § 486, 1993). 21A.24.400 Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Source of funds. Ali monies received from penatties resulting from the violation of rules and laws regulating development and activities within sensitive areas shall be deposited into the fund. (Ord. 10870 § 487, 1993). 21A24A1 O Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Use of funds. Monies from the fund shall only be used for paying the cost of enforcing and implementing sensillve area laws and rules. (Ord. 10870 § 488, 1993). 21A24.420 Sensitive areas mitigation fee-Investment of funds. Monies in the fund not needed for immediate expenditure shall be deposited in a separate investment fund pursuant to RCW 36.29.020. The director shall~ designated as the investment fund director. (Ord. 10870 § 489, 1993). (King County 9-2004) 21A-209 21A.24.500 ZONING 21A.24.500 Sensitive area designation. A. 1. A property owner or the property owner's agent may request a sensitive area designation for part or an of a site, without seeking a permit for a development proposal, by filing with the department a· written application for a sensitive area designation on a form· provided by the department. If the· request is for review of a portion of a site, the application shall indude a map identifying the portion of the site for which the designation is sought. 2. The designation shall be limned to the following determinations: a. The existence, location, and boundaries of any stream, wetland, coal mine hazard area, landslide hazard area or steep slope on the site; and b. The dassification of any stream or wetland. 3. The designation shall not indude any evaluation or interpretation of the applicabiltty of sensmve area buffers or other sensmve area standards to a future development proposal. B. In preparing the sensitive area designation, the department shall perform a sensitive area review to: 1. Determine whether any sensitive area that is subject to this designation process exists on the site and confirm its type, location, boundaries and classification; 2. Determine whether a special study is required to identify and characterize the location, boundaries and classification of the sensitive area; 3. Evaluate the special study, if required; and 4._ Document the existence, location and classification of any sensitive area that is subject to this designation process. C. If required by the department, the applicant for a sensitive area designation shall prepare and submit to the department the special study required by subsection B.2. of this section. D. The department's determination of a sensitive area designation shaH be made in writing within one hundred twenty days after the application for a sensitive area. designation is complete, as provided in K.C.C. 20.20.050. The periods set forth in K.C.C. 20.20.100A.1 through A.5 shall be exduded from the one- hundred-lwenty-day period. The written determination made pursuant to tl)ls section as to the existence, location, and dassification of a sensmve area shall be effective for two years from the date the determination is issued. The department shall rely on the determination in its review of a complete application for a permit or approval filed within two years after the determination is issued. If the determination appl_ies to less than an entire site, the determination shall dearly identify the portion of the site to which the determination applies. E. The applicant for a sensitive area designation shall be responsible for fees as provided in K.C.C. TiUe 'Zl. . F. If the department designates sensmve areas on a site pursuant to this section, the applicant for a development proposal on that site shall submit proof that a sensmve area notice on title has been filed as required by K.C.C. 21A.24.170. G. The department by rule may provide for the designation of other sensmve areas Identified by this chapter as established by council ordinance in addition to those provided for in this section. H.1. Except as provided in 2. of this subsection, the departmenfs determination under this section is final. 2. If the department reries .on a sensitive area designation made pursuant to this section during its review of an application for a permit or other approval of a development proposal and ihe penntt or other approval is subject to an administrative appeal, any appeal of the designation shall be consolidated with and is subject to the same appeal process as the underlying development proposal. If the King County hearing examiner makes the county's final decision with regard to the permit or other approval type for the underlying development proposal, the hearing examine(s decision constitutes the county's f,nal decision on the designation. If the King County council, acting as a quasi-judicial body, makes the county's final decision with regard to the permit or other approval type for the underlying development proposal, the King County council's decision constiMes the county's final decision on the designation. (Ord. 14187 § 1, 2001 ). (King County 9-2004) 21A-210 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.510 21A.24.510 Effect of approval of septic system design based on sensitive area designation. If the department of Seattle-King County public health approves a septic system design based on a sensitive area designation made pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.500 and the applicant submits a complete application to the department of development and environmental services within two years after the date the department of development and environmental service issues the sensitive area designation under K.C.C. 21A.24.500, the standards of this chapter in effect at the time of the department of Seattle- King County public health's approval of the septic system design shall apply to the department of dev11lopment and environmental services's determination ofwhether the septic system design complies with the provisions of this chapter for those sensitive areas for which a sensitive area designation has been issued. (Ord. 14187 § 2, 2001). (King County 9-2004) 21A-211 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 CIT OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat -Environmental Determination Rescission LUAOS-093, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Potter, On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) on June 20, 2008. ERC adopted KC DDES' threshold determination solely to comply with state law provisions to hold only one open record hearing to hear the preliminary plat and all appeals; and to initiate a new appeal period. As you are aware, two appeals of the Environmental Detennination of Non-Significance for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat have been filed. During the process of preparing for the appeal challenges, City Staff discovered that the situation and circumstances surrounding this plat necessitated a more thorough review. Moreover, further analysis of the case revealed that the DNS recommendation previously issued by King County and relied upon by ERC may create conflict and problems with the ensuing plat review. Therefore, the decision has been made to rescind the threshold determination of the project pending further analysis of potential environmental impacts to the site. The rescission of the ERC's DNS would result in negating the two existing appeals that have been filed. The date of the public hearing before the Renton Hearing Examiner has also been cancelled. We will inform you of the next steps in the project review process as soon as they have been determined. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-430-7319. Sincerely ~a~~ Associate Planner cc: Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator C.E. Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning I\1anager Neil Watts, Development Services Director Ann Nielsen, City Attorney Office David Petrie / Owner Appellants Parties of Record File LUA08-093, PP, ECF -------10_5_5 _So_u_th_G_r_a-dy-W-ay ___ R_e_n_to_n_, V..-'-as_h_in_gt_o_n_9_8_05_7 ______ ~ @ This paper con!ciins 50•:'., recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON RESCISSION OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA08-093, PP, ECF Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwaler, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is localed within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162"" Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are localed in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Staff requests that the ERC issue a rescission of its October 6, 2008 Determination of Non-Significance, for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: SIGNATURES: regg i , 1nistrator '"'~·kw Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Southeast of 162"" Avenue SE & SE 1401h Street City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Da{if !O/O~ l~Chief Fire Department tt(tc/o8 Date l Da DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM November 6. 2008 Environmental Review Committee Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, CED -Planning Division, x7319 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat; LUAOS-093, PP, ECF On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNSJ for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat This Detennination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DOES) on June 20, 2008. An appeal of the King County SEPA determination was filed by Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ("CARE"), on July 7, 2008. The adoption of the KC DOES threshold detennination was done so that the City of Renton could assume lead agency status in order to comply with state law provisions to hold only one open record hearing to hear the preliminary plat and all appeals. During the appeal period following the issuance of the City's Determination, an additional appeal was filed. Upon review of the points of challenge within the appeal documents staff determined they would not have arrived at the same DNS recommendation to the ERC. At the present time, staff requests that the ERC issue a rescission of its October 6, 2008 Determination of Non-Significance for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. Thank you. cc: I @no w filer h: \di vision. s\develop. ser\dev&plan. i ng\projet:t s\() 8-09 3. roe a le\erc recission memo 08-093 .doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M )lovember 6, 2008 Rocale Timmons, Planner Kayren Kittri ck, Development Services Je 3 Liberty Gardens Plat -LUA 08-093 We have reviewed the subject Environmental and Development application for a proposed plat recently annexed, The following are comments related to the environmental impacts, policy, and other code-related comments: EXISTING CONDITIO\'S: WATER SEWER The property is cu tTentl y not served by a public water system, There is an existing water main in 160 1 " Avenue SE, part of the Water District #90 system, The property is currently not served by a public sewer line, There is a City of Renton 15-inch sanitary sewer line at the intersection of 1601 h Avenue SE and SE 1441 " Street A 12-inch diameter sewer line is in 1601 h Avenue SE, STORM Surface water conveyance facilities currently are available to serve this site in SE 1441 " Street, some located in the existing unimproved ROW that would have to be relocated or rebuilt and accommodated in the case of 162nd Avenue SE being extended, Both a Level 1 and Level 3 analysis was provided in compliance with the 1998 KCSWDM. STREETS The site is fronted on the cast and west by partially improved and unimproved rights-of-way, CODE RELATED COMMENTS: WATER 1. All fire hydrants installed or serving this subdivision are required to be fitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting. KK 08-015.doc •' Page 2 of3 2. Extension of a water main of su tncient size to serve domestic and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. SEWER I. A System Development Charge (SOC) per lot is required for any new development and will be charged with the construction pennit. 2. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of $344. 71 per lot. 3. Extension ofa minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton sta11dards is required to serve this plat. STOR~ I. The Surface \.\Tater System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for this site. 2. A preliminary surface water drainage plan and report (per the 1998 King County Surface Waler Manual; see the seven Core requirements) was submitted. The Technical Infomrntion Report analysis submitted with this application has covered all of the Core requirements. Several drainage issues were identified both in the report and in a subsequent appeal that will require mitigation. STREETS/TRANSPORTATION I. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75.00 per Average Daily Trip or appropriate Impact Fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. 2. The frontages along both the east and west sides of the property are required to be developed to comply with King County street standards for the full length of the property. 3. Two points of access are required lor this development. 4. All wire utilities shall be inst:dlcd underground per the City of Renton Undcrgroundi11g Ordinance. I fthrcc or more poles are required to be moved to accommodate the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. SEPA CONDITIONS I. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the latest Department of Ecology Standards and staff review. 2. Due to identified basin drainage issues downstream of this project, a SEPA condition for compliance with the latest KCSWDM (2005) is recommended. KK 08-015.doc Page 3 of 3 PLAT CONDITIONS I. An appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee or Impact Fee shall be assessed and paid at the issuance of the construction pennit. If the City of Renton Traffic Mitigation Fee is used $75.00 per Average Daily Trip shall be assessed. According to the ITE Manual, 7th Edition, the project will generate 351 additional daily trips. Therefore the preliminary fee will total S26,325, subject to final plat review. 2. In support of safety on the new roads serving the plat, it is recommended that street lighting in conformance with King County lighting standards be required as a plat condition. KK 08-015.doc CITY OF RENTON OCT 2 2 2008 RECEIVED /)'v'\_ October 14, 2008 CITY CLERK'S OF•ICE VI"-~ f'os-hJ 1~ Norm & Patricia Gammell, 16043 SE 142"' Place, Rich Lea Crest lot #9 and #JO Donald & Andrea Gragg, 16046 SE 142"' Place, Rich Lea Crest lot #11 and #12 John & Nenita Ching, 16038 SE 142nd Place, Rich Lea Crest, Lot# 13 Norbert Mohr, 16224 SE 144"' Street, Parcel #1457500156 Renton WA 98059 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 RE: Liberty Gardens, Preliminary Plat File #LUAOS-093 & L04P0034 Dear Sir/Madam: The City notified us that the appeal period for Liberty Gardens will be held open until October 27, 2008, We submit the following list of concerns for consideration during this appeal period. We have reviewed the "Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan of Liberty Gardens" and "Preliminary Road Improvement Plan and Profile of 162"• Ave. SE Extension" and we need to bring to your attention our neighborhood concerns about the building of the Liberty Gardens subdivision and placement of a new road on an un-opened right-of-way of 162nd Ave. SE. In our discussion below, we shall refer to the open ditch originating from the runoff of 160"' Ave. SE and running south-easterly through Parcel #1457500110 ("Smith Property"), to the north property line of Rich Lea Crest Lot #13 ("Ching Property"), and east along the north property line of Lot #12 ("Gragg Property"), until the course turns southerly down the un-opened right-of-way of 162"• Ave. SE. The existing ditch on 162nd Ave. SE varies in size from 10 feet wide/4 feet deep to 6 feet wide/JO feet deep until it reaches the existing DNR pond on the north side of SE 144"' St. l. Due to heavy runoff originating from Nichols Place, Evendell and Liberty Grove, which passes through Smith Property, about 5 inches of silt has accumulated in the ditch at the Ching Property during the last 2 years. The silt will continue downstream, and into the proposed 18" pipe running along the planned road, 162"• Ave. SE. 2. The proposed 18" storm pipe to and from Catch Basin #7 will not facilitate the water flowing through the Ching Property and Gragg Property. The ditch in the Ching Property leads into a 24" grate at the edge of the Gragg Property. Due to drainage from recent developments north of their property (Nichols Place, Evendell and Liberty Grove), the Chings have seen the stormwater flow reach the top of this pipe. City of Renton Hearing Exam Liberty Gardens, Preliminary Plat File #LUAOS-093 & L04P0034 October 14, 2008 Page 2 of3 3. There is no ditch on the west side of the proposed 162nd Ave. SE, north ofGragg's property (Rich Lea Crest Lots #II and# 12). How will the stormwater flow into the Type 2 catch basin at the northeast corner of Gragg' s property? 4. Why is the ditch on the west side of the proposed 162nd Ave. SE road being tighlined? During 9 months of the year, this large ditch carries very large flows. 5. Where will swfacewater from the west side of the proposed road go when the road is higher or at the same elevation as the existing grade oflots 10, 11, and 12 of Rich Lea Crest. 6. The Liberty Gardens plans do not take into account the 12" drain pipe that runs between lots 9 and 10 (the Gammell property) of Rich Lea Crest that drains the catch basin system on SE 142nd Place to the existing drainage ditch on l62"d Ave. SE. The plans also do not take into account the 6 inch drain pipes on Gragg's property now flowing into the drainage ditch. 7. Will the wet/detention vault hold at least the equivalent of surfacewater volume held by the original DNR Pond? 8. Property owner Norbert Mohr (Parcel #1457500156) is very concerned the wet/detention vault on Tract B of Liberty Gardens outfalls into the ravine which travels approximately 500 feet to the south and turns to the west to enter the existing detention pond on the right--0f-way of 162nd Ave. SE,just north of SE 144th St. As the ditch from the ravine turns towards the west, the grade of the slope in this ditch flattens out and additional flow will flood the northwest comer of the basement level of their house and erode their land. 9. What landscaping/berms/fencing will be placed to protect the property of the subject owners from persons entering their properties through the proposed access road on 162nd Ave. SE. Presently, there is no access from the un--0pened right-of-way. Hopefully, the City will be sensitive about retaining the privacy of the property owners on the west and east side of the newly proposed 162nd Ave. SE. I 0. It was also brought to our attention that the aligrunent of the proposed road partially falls in an "Erosion Haz.ard Area" per the "Sensitive Areas Portfolio" of King County. (See attached map). 11. King County has downstream analysis of this waterway on 162nd Ave. SE for not only the new plats of Nichols Place, Evendell and Liberty Grove, but also flooding problems on the property located north-west of the Smith Property. K.C. DOT had put in a larger pipe to prevent further flooding to this property. Do you have access to the downstream analysis for these projects and the flooding problem, as the reports will reveal the substantial flow and erosion in the existing ditch on 162nd Ave. SE.? City of Renton Hearing Exam1 Liberty Gardens, Preliminary Plat File #lUA08-093 & l04P0034 October 14, 2008 Page 3 of3 We would appreciate your attention to these matters; and we request that our concerns are addressed in the upcoming appeal process when reviewed by the City's Hearing Examiner for the preliminary plat of Liberty Gardens. Yours truly, Owners of property located at 16043 SE n<1 Pl., Lots 9 & 10 Owners of property located at Owners of property located at 16046 SE 142"a Pl., Lots 11 & 12 16038 SE 142nd Pl., Lot 13 lJ~~Q~ Donald Graggl--~ K.W. Ching ~~ Patriciame Andrea Gragg Owners of proJ;'erty located at 16224 SE 144 Street, Parcel #1457500156 cc: Mayor Denis law \ r ~__J ~ '< ~ ,1,f::,l::.,!_1:).'.':J J4l!.1 •1 ,:Bil rnrn~ / .':JJ/!'.l[l~K'!.1 :_•<::,./,'1'.J~l(J.'~I M~'J[I ',!·,.'','l'l'"-1 -,1,fJ!'JJ .',r:.,/::.,!'.1,'RC: 1.f.3'4' ,i,f~t'loLIOt.a•r.1 M32D ! ,i;,,~ :i~·:,1.• .. • / SI: ~44rH SI + l:' topography vicinity of PN #1457500150 * ,p, 1 ./::,/:,,!.I!.!/,':} l,jW·:'--r!:..'o ~ ~ a .~ -.';,3 .':J (.I.' .• ~:•' \:'6~~j~.' !U .'-._"jJ .'~l~I :1 .'(I .'6!.1/B ,' • .''.:,J/!l!_l,lf.i:.I ! 6!!.,'4 ,tt,:[.IJJ •.:·-:J::' !;! .' ::•:! ,:,, 5£" 1~~.r.:: ;)"h l .'':..d ,'~l'._1~1,f~I ~ 'f:i!.'~'J / £:'.,,J/!.1:.1!.l[i!,1 •r;n:.•r ,·h·:.,.::,;U;!• ~ -,1,r::.,1::,v:1 .' .. ·.1 M3:J6 14312 -,~::,i/:0,01'.)!~'J M<''.f,' -_i [.I ,I 6[.ILl:'..J[.l,f~l '4i!ofl °H.1 ~'6!.1!,1!,lt} J~ ! .f::,/'.;1(1[.I) :.:'~' / !,I /!.1~1[.l!,1!,l;_'!.I UW'lO l6~J~'t, 16!.136 ., ~·J~'JLl:.O!sl[ . .J.l,/ !(.itl2J ,I '.",l .'(;<_l[L'.}!.l / '_I !JI ~ /]; r;; ,• 6LIJ~ •4 6!.l•f!'..i .'.':'1J/'.,l'.J',I !:.I / • .''JJ ,"'.1!.1~!,l~I li, ,.1;4,8 /(I/(; Ll(l(ltt(:!!_I H.!5D 1~}'.lf,<!YJU:JlY ,'[.L.'{i!.l:'JtKlt\(_L rn-.100 iJj '" ~ l;; 'ii - .C-M!.1:C.' /<_I~ /J.''-l.~.JLI • 4 : ... • t) : ,, f ., '" ., ,'I;, -j • • • • Fl!oo. a.., .. ..,.' C:rMr.Mr-~ ~ 16:.':.:'.-f /•l~,(:'..•'.,l'.,1,1 ~,t'_; J,[:.,,'~,:.1:.1.•!)·_I A-AT .'-i;.,.'::.,~1!.• .•;:,-1 Renton ~ i.r .. •r_i~ .1 ·i~,::·.,:.l!.1.'f.'U ,1.1:.,/::.,~1::.1.,:.,!,I !.f==.'".!~ f,.a.SA ¥.A,_...C !i!l!j • • fr tE,.O'Si\O,., l!llll) .',r::.,/t,~1:.1.1::.,::., !;f,]tl~~ • i. {: •-• 1,f:.,lt1!.IU.1!>~ WI --,#'----r-<I' H•O::! /.-f.1'.-.''I H;i;,,1 u /DJ::,::, ~' ({C~ ,' J..'J!.IW'-IY:.0 lfi!, l ,..., lU!+:,:.,:,1:1~,t,. /·f;.!:,>f'.j \'"""'"'"' ·'0!::'f·~·'-1,' I,: r..: ,1 :.,j " ~ i _, ~r.1 ·' -~ ,'(;t,i,:,•,•l'I ~-, •. 1 .' O·f:'..l•f .'f3-i ~::.1 st 1.:JRO =''- HMU'-' /fj!,l:,O;J'._l:_1_•.-~1 .'•f•f;}f.'.• '$.!, t;J o' 16iJO!', .'·1•W.f 1:.1~).~/'.!.'!::''_I !Htl6 .''..18 ! .! .'!.l~ r.1!1 .'!Jtl.1.1.•:1 .' _:'._l ! '.Id.' _!.'('}C'..I :,w. ~ : • .'!,'J<_l:J~._''.1:1 -·.t-..·J~l::.0!::'.)J _! ;,,• -~;_· .~::!~,!~ J :.,(i \Cl 20')8 i(1qg C-ouQt\' .' ~Ld .'S !!B!J!J 1_..f<f/_t! H"4•J!:I 0 239ft COMMENTS: GREEN SHAOEO area ls SAO Erosion Hazard Aree PER KING COUNTY lnfonnatlon Included on lhls map has been compned by King -Cowil.!fSiaff from a variety of soun:&i a·ntj Is subi8CHO-change Wllhout notice. Ktng ·caunty"mB-li:05·oo· iepreseniatlons or warranties, express or lmplled, as lo accuracy, completeness, tlmelileas, or rights to the use of suctrlnfonnatlon. this documen1 la riot lntanded for use as e survey product. King County shan not be ltabfe for any genera.I, special, Indirect, incldems~ or consequential damages lnciUdlnO, lt\#'_l'IOt llmlted to, lost revenues or lost profits resultlng from the use or misuse of the Information contained on th1s map. Any sele of this map or lnfonnatlon on this map Is prohibited except 5y~n permission of King County. O.te: 8/312008 Source: King County MAP -SenaftlYe Areas_ (http://www.melrOkc.gov/GISJIMAP) I• JI'.!• /rl'..1[1~'!_1 Ic.f..11._/ ~ King County D Cash j;tcheckNo. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 ):LfJ;) D Copy Fee ~Appeal Fee Receipt N~ 1225 D Notary Service D _________ _ Description: I\.?~ :10 \\6X -LUA--os--cfl 3 Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip Amount $ 7c;; - DATE: ' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (ONS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME· Liberty Gardens Preliminary PJ111 PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOB-093, EGF, PP LOCATION: Southeast of 162nd Avenue SE and SE 140th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application with the King county Department of Development and Envlrommlal Services for Envir<>nm1,ntal (SEPA) Review and Prelimlnary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots far the eventual development of 5lngle family rHidences, with tract,, for recreation, stonnwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site Is loi:ated within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; howev.,,, the project is YeSled to King County's R-4 zoning designation's deyelopment regulations. The proposed density would be approximately -4 dwelllng unite ~· :acre-. The proposed lots would range In size from approximately 5,900 equare feet In area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be proyJde(! Yia three nsw Internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill s!re~m are located In the southwesl corn.,, of the property. The subjact prqperty was annoxed to 1he City ot Renton on August 11, 2008. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVI: A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appo.,Js of the environmental determination rnust be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady way, Renton, WA 9B057. Appeals to lhe Examiner are 9ovarned by City of Renton Municipal Coda Section.-4-8·110.B. Additional information re9ardlng lhe ,ippeal procoss may be obtained from Iha Renton Clty Clerk''!' Offi&e, (425) 430.6510 A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 18, 2006 AT 9;00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SUBMITTED APPEAL. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WU BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430·7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOS-093, ECF, PP LOCATION: Southeast of 162nd Avenue SE and SE 140th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 18, 2008 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SUBMITTED APPEAL. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THI;: APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ' ~,:;~· - .-11.11 ---,-.; ,,_,. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when callin9 for proper file identification. Denis Law, Mayor October 10, 2008 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Potter: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUA08-093, ECF, PP CIT--OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on October 6, 2008, decided that your project will be re-issued a Determination of Non- Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable sigl)ificant adverse impact on the environment. An E1Jvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4s6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8~11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 18, 2008 a.t 9:00 a.m. to consider the Preliminary Plat and all SEPA appeals. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~ eTimmons ciate Planner _c_c_: __ s_e_e_A_tta-ch-:-:-:-:-~-: 8 -h 0 -:-,:-:-:- 0 w_rd_ay---R-en_t_o_n.-W-as_h_in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_7 _______ ~ @ Thls paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Steve Botheim, Supervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Kelly Whiting, KC DOT Road Svc Div MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD Kim Claussen PPMIII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 , (party of record) Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS LUSD , (party of record) Shirley Goll, ASII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Kris Langley, Traffic Engineer CPLN LUSD Larry West, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD Lisa Dinsmore DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Trishah Bull DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Chad Tibbits DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 (party of record) Updated: 10/10/08 MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Alex Perlman DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 , (party of record) Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (applicant/ contact) Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) MS OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Bruce Whittaker DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 , (party of record) Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (party of record) Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Patty Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) Don & Andrea Gregg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUAOS-093, PP, ECF, AAD Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 12320 NE 8th Street ste: # 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) (party of record) Gregg Zimmerman City of Renton Public Works Department ' (party of record) Updated: 10/10/08 (party of record) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Don Gregg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) October 10, 2008 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination CI1 T OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Transmitted herewith is a .copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 6, 2008: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUAOS-093, ECF, PP SE of 162'' Avenue & SE 140 1 • Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project sit!' is located within the City's Residential a 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is veste1f to King County's ·R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots would range In size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class III stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton ~n August 11, 2008. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM 11n October 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~ tt-Associate Planner Enclosure -------1-0-55-So_u_th_G_ra_dy-W-ay ___ R_e_n-to_n_, W-a,-h-in-gt_o_n_9-80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper conta,ns 50% recyc~ material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Environmental Detenninat LUAOS-093, ECF, PP Page 2 of2 cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Mucklesboot Cultural Resources Program US Anny Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA08-093, ECF, PP APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE & SE 140"' Street City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services October 11, 2008 October 6, 2008 /0/06/0'D 00~~ Dater r !'."David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department lD}D1,,)0B Date A x ietsch, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development Date ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE October 6, 2008 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, CED Planning Manager Meeting Date: Monday, October 6, 2008 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (Timmons/ LUAOS-093, ECF, PP Location: Southeast of 162"" Street SE and SE 1401 " Street. The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 • lots for the eventual development of single famlly residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, Joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential • 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new Internal dead end streets extended from 162"' Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. CONSENTAGENDAITEM: 2008 CTR Plan (Nate Jones/ LUAOS-103, ECF Location: Citywide. The applicant requests Environmental (SEPA) review for the 2008 City of Renton Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Ordinance. This Ordinance fulfills RCW 70.94.527 of the Washington Clean Air Act which requires local jurisdictions to adopt a CTR plan for major employer worksites located In the affected urban growth area. The plan requires public and private employers with at least 100 employees to participate In the program which includes establishing drive alone reduction goals and targets, measuring progress with biennial surveys, and submitting annual program reports. The plan also includes a process for the City to review, approve, reject and revise an employer's program as well as an appeal process for employers. The plan allows Jurisdictions to establish a Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center program in the Urban Center. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director® D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, HearinQ Examiner C. Duffy, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director® L. Warren, City Attorney ® ERG REPORT ... ity of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: October 6, 2008 Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Owner: David Petrie, 811 S 273rd Court, Des Moines, WA 98198 Applicant: Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 Appellant: Gwendolyn High, C.A.R.E., PO Box 2936, Renton, WA 98056 File Number: LUA08-093, ECF, PP (King County DOES File No. L04P0034) Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the Jots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from l 62"d Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class III stream are located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Southeast of 162"a A venue SE and SE 1401h Street NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): NIA 8.95 acres Total Building Area GSF: NIA Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). ERC Report 08-093 City of Renton Department of~ munity & Economic Development ~nvironmental Review Committee Report LIBERTY GARDENS P IM/NARY PLATLUAOB-093, ECF, PP Report of October 6, 2008 Page 2 of2 i PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for review on December 29, 2004. On June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold determination, Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), was issued (attached). An appeal of the SEPA determination was filed by Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ("CARE"), on July 7, 2008. As required by state law, the hearing for this appeal was combined with the hearing on the preliminary plat application and scheduled to be heard on July 17, 2008 before the King County Hearing Examiner. Before this matter could be heard, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation, both the SEPA appeal and Preliminary Plat for Liberty Gardens is now within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. Although the SEPA determination has previously been issued, the City of Renton must assume lead agency status and reissue the SEPA decision in order to comply with state law provisions to hold only one open record hearing to hear the preliminary plat and all appeals. I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.2JC.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: lssne a DNS with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Exhibits Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit4 King County's SEPA Threshold Determination (dated June 20, 2008) Neighborhood Detail Map Aerial Photograph Preliminary Plat Plan ( dated May 2, 2008) C. Environmental Impacts As the City of Renton's responsible SEPA official, we recommend that the Environmental Review Committee re-adopt the existing Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) (attached) for Liberty Gardens issued by King County's Department of Development and Environmental Services, dated June 20, 2008. Staff has found this document to be appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision maker. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied in writing on or before S:00 PM, October 27, 2008. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERG Report 08-093 Date of Issuance: Project: Location: King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Determination Of Non-Significance (DNS) for Liberty Gardens (DOES File No. L04P0034) June 20, 2008 Request is to subdivide 8.95 acres, zoned R-4 into 36 lots for single family detached residences and a tract for combined drainage and recreation. The lots range from approximately 5,900-9,350 square feet. The property is located on 162nd Avenue SE, approximately Y,, mile south orthe 162nd Avenue SE and SE 136 1h Street intersection. King County Permits: Formal Plat County Contact: Proponent: Zoning: R-4 Chad Tibbits, Project Manager III chad.tihhits@metrokc.gov (206) 296-7194 David Petrie 811 S. 273"1 CL Des Moines, WA 1)8198 253-946-66 I 9 Community Plan: Newcastle Drainage Subbasin: Lower Ceder River Section/Township/Range: 14-23-05 Notes: ' A. This finding is based on review of the project site plan, environmental checklist, level one drainage analysis, and other documents in the file. B. The drainage facilities will be designed in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. C. Issuance of this threshold determination does not constitute approval of the permit. This proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable King County codes which regulate development activities, including the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, Road Standards, Surface Water Design Manual, and the Sensitive Areas Regulations. D. As a requirement of compliance with the 1993 King County Road Standards, the proposed subdivision is required to extend, or financially participate with other developers, 162nd Avenue SE --from the subdivision boundary to SE 144th Street in general compliance with preliminary plan and profile drawings submitted to the Department. With Code authority (the 1993 KCRS, adopted by reference at KCC 14.42 with Ord. 11187) outside of SEP A-related transportation codes (KCC 14.80) to require this improvement, a condition of approval to construct/share in the cost of the construction --via a Mitigated DNS --is not needed nor appropriate. Therefore, the requirement will be incorporated in stafrs recommended conditions of approval report. Final engineering ~~AIN FILE COl EXHIBIT 1 Liberty Gardens -LO JJ4 June 20, 2008 Page 2 details of the road alignment and associated improvement is pending upon the submittal of engineering plans following a grant of preliminary approval. Threshold Determination The responsible official finds that the above described proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. This finding is made pursuant to RCW 43.21 C, KCC 20.44 and WAC 197-11 after reviewing the environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency and considering mitigation measures which the agency or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal. The responsible official finds this information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of this proposal. The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36. 70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21 C.240 and WAC 197-11-158. Our agency will not require any additional mitigation measures under SEP A. Comments and Appeals Written comments or any appeal of this threshold determination must be stamped received by King County before 4:30 PM on July 7, 2008. Appeals must be accompanied by a nonrefundable filing fee. Please reference the file numbers when corresponding. Appeals must be in writing and state the perceived errors in the threshold determination, specific reasons why the determination should be reversed or modified, the harm the appellant will suffer if the threshold determination remains unchanged, and the desired outcome of the appeal. If the appellant is a group, the harm to any one or more members must be stated. Failure to meet these requirements may result in dismissal of the appeal. Comment/appeal deadline: Appeal filing fee: Address for comment/appeal: Responsible Official: 4:30 PM on July 7, 2008 S250 check or money order made out to the King County Office of Finance King County Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98057-5212 ATTN: Current Planning Section Date SE,.1,;J:2nd St t------,-1 i i i !:::! R-4 i ""' I ~ R-4 i Ji;;l i If) t ~ • ! z -··--·-··----·i~ .... t N • E--< -..... .... s1:;::1371h Pl .. sE isaui ,,; .. ··· SE.,~!1Ulf'I ZONING PW TEcur,.,1cAL SER~ 07/15/08 E7 -11 T23N RSE E 1/2 SE 12etl, St SE 132nd Pl SE 11ffllst SE 13411, Pl SE 1361h St SE'141STPI SE 142nr!S' ~--, ., , 142ndP. EXHIBIT 2 ,i) 1/\ '''f 4. "'!I ol ~ .~ • < • • -. . "st,; 1:fotPI .... IJJ .• * , $/;: 1~nd 0 $:i" ·.-; I 14 T23N R5E E 1/2 5314 92 82··· 26 T24N R4E 25 T24N 'R4E · 81 94w· C2 ··cc-.-- 3S ·T24J·.f~4E 36 T24N R4E 306 ff, .307 •=" =n1-11~,I·to2 ... 1T231if~4$ •. · :1t23NR<E' -·. -. ,@08 309' 03 \p~ T23N~E-, 32s,. u s2tf· Lf j\0·· ·~f-Zti;f@}-,'c,· :'.jz:4· '4 ~~k;-R~ \;', ~13 T23N R4E ,~8~3N Rse~;;;.·;· 1'1 f2~ff RSE 370 16 T23N'R5E:· -st- ' . 26 T24N SE 35W4NR5E S.01 ·D· ·7 . : ·- 2 T23N RSE 7 1 <( _T2.JN R-5E 334 336 · 337' 371 815l 816 \~35 ,···· . · '-·--, Gt G2· -·. G3. 1 G4 · Gs..· Gnc-1 'Bl=-- ~_4-T23~R4E 19T23NR5E " .2_0T23NR5E. 21 T23N-R~ 22T23fl~ I 23T23N~ 2• 3 T23N R4E 44 34 . \;, ! ""':.·. 600. 601 602 .820 821 E 1 ·· 1.Ht2 T23N Fi:4E 2S.-CT23~ R4E H3 ~H4 3orT23N. R5E -26 T23t4' RSE_-. 25 , tiO •351! . . 603 l!-c,C!~~J~ 34 T23N RSE 826. >17 35T23N RSE ~ 60,7 608 <~ 609 : 632} 833 8 1 J2 22N R4E 1 T22NR4E RESIDENTIAL ~ (RC) Resource Conservation ~ (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac ~ (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac ~ (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac J3 6 T22N RSE I RMH I (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes ~ (R-10} Residential 10 du/ac IR-HI (R-14) Residential 14 du/ac I RM-r I (RM·F) Residential Multi-Family I RM-T j (RM-T) Residential Multi-Family Traditional j RM-u I (RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center ~s4:=·-J7 VOi~ 5 T22N R5E 4~R5E 3 T22N RSE 2 T22N RSE 1T2 MIXED USE CENTERS ~ (CV)CenterVdtage loc-Nil (UC-N1) Urban Genier· North 1 luc-N2I (UC-N2) Urban Center -North 2 ~ (CD) Center Downtown COMMERCIAL eJ (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential ~ (CA) Commercial Arterial CT£J (CO) Commercial Office ~ (CN) Commercial Neighborhood INDUSTRIAL @ {IL) Industrial • Light 0 (IM) Industrial -Medium W (IH) Industrial • Heavy ----Reolon City Llm.its ---Adjacent City limits KROLL PAGE PAGE# INDEX Renton City Limits Parcels SCALE 1 : 4,607 -.., Renton 200 0 200 FEET 400 600 http://rentonnetorg/MapGuide/maps/Parcel.mwf N A EXHIBIT 3 Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:50 PM ------:------)--~ < I ~ Cl "i:i/ I ;'.. 'f .!. 't •C, I ',-r' -l ~ I ,· ai i<\ o , / / ~\\, I j .··· ... ··. ·~, . . . \~ ----\""' 1 ! / • ' I pu ...... ! 'ii '" ! l 11 '" I 1111111 ~ .. iif 1 15 d I 1 II i ! != !. != ~ &B -!9~ij;~, ! "' •-~a a:? !I : ,· . ·~t :, \ ·. •'' .. ! ,·' '' \',•' 'II \. •\' \ ' OAVO M. PETRIE 81t S 273RD CT DES MOltES, WA 98198 (253) 946-6619 , '"' .., .. ""' -""-"""'"""-"""""' ,.,,,,. -.. --POlro.nll'r-........... -- PR5UMt4ARY PLAT MAP OF UBEFm' GARDENS ..,,~y o CITY •F RENTON O~,~ "t¢; Department of Community and • ..11. • Economic Development j:l-~ Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~N~o;;-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- October 7, 2008 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147'h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (LUA08-093 and L04P0034) Dear Ms. Donnelly: Thank you for your comments and photos related to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat; dated September 29, 2008. Your letter has been included in the official project file. Your comments and questions will be considered by the reviewing official before making a decision on this project. I would also like to mention that the City of Renton will be conducting the review of the preliminary plat; however the project is vested to King County's subdivision and development regulations. If you have any further questions regarding this project feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, 1~~ Associate Planner cc: File LUAOS-093, PP, ECF -------,o-5-5-So_t_1th_G_r_a_dy-W-ay ___ R_e_n_to_n_, Vv-'-a,-h-in-gt_o_n_9-80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper conw.1ns 500,,:, rr:r.yclcc1 rnatenal, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ' Ms. R. Timmons City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Liberty Gardens Dear Ms. Timmons: 10415 -147'• Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 September 29, 2008 This is my formal comment letter for the Liberty Gardens plat. I live approximately 5 miles from this proposed plat. This plat is on the East Renton Plateau. Water from this plat flows downstream to residents below and eventually to Cedar River. There is a state law that says upstream developments cannot harm downstream resident's property. Renton has a municipal NPDES permit. The Growth Management Act says: "Growth management includes: economic development, a workable transportation system, quality drinking water, affordable housing, good schools, open space and parks, and, at the same time. protection of our natural resources. The GMA requires certain local developments to develop .......... These policies, plans, and actions must address the effects of growth on the environment, including water resources". This developer has said that he will install a Level 3 detention pond -with Level 3 Flow control in this development. Detention ponds will not collect all the surface water from this development. How will this developer protect downstream residents from this non- collected stormwater? How will Renton protect Cedar River from this downstream erosion? With the Municipal NPDES permit, Renton has to do what to protect the area? My second concern is about parks. The above Growth Management Act statement says that growth management includes "parks". Yet, Renton doesn't make developers put in parks for the resident's children. (Look at all of the Renton developments on 142"d Avenue SE. Many, many developments, but no community parks.) What will Renton do to correct this fact? All that is required is a park mitigation fee. · Third concern. There is a Class 3 stream on the property. In the past, Renton didn't care if developers fill in stream or dig close to stream without having an HPA permit. I have already sent Fish and Wildlife a copy of this proposed plat. Will Renton make this developer get an NPDES permit and HPA permit? This plat also has a wetland. What will Renton allow the developer to do -fill in the wetland? I am enclosing pictures taken from my property that shows what damage can be done after clear cutting property in anticipation for development. How will Renton prevent this from happening at the site of Liberty Gardens? Thank you. Sincerely, Claudia Donnelly Enclosures --,,~Y o CITY JF RENTON +O~'i k ~ Department of Community and Economic Development ~ !:!! ~ Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~N~o,:,,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- September 22, 2008 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E. PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (LUA08-093 and L04P0034) Dear Ms. High: Thank you for your comments and photos related to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat; dated September 17, 2008. Your email has been included in the official project file. Your comments and questions will be considered by the reviewing official before making a decision on this project. If you have any further questions regarding this project feel free to contact me at(425) 430-7219. Sincerely, 1-~ Associate Planner cc: File LUAOS-093, PP, ECF Wayne Potter, Barghausen Engineers/ Applicant -------,-0-55-So_u_th_G_r_ad_y_W-ay ___ R_e_n_to-n,-W-as-h-in_gt_on-9-80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE I Rocale Timmons -RE: Liberty Gardens From: To: Date: Subject: Highlands Neighbors <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> <rtimmons@ci.renton.wa.us> 09/17/2008 2:41:40 PM RE: Liberty Gardens Hello Alli With this email I am submitting photos a brief comments in regard to the Liberty Garden subdivision application. The applicant has presented no data or other acknowledgement that there is currently a seasonal stream that exits the project site on the south east. The streambed leaves the project site slight west of the junction of the 2 parcels to its south -1457500154 and 1457500160. The general stream path can be inferred from the contour lines in the attached Contour map as well. HPIM3747.JPG Streambed flowing off (south) the Liberty Gardens parcel.HPIM3748.JPG Makeshift bridge over stream bed flowing off (south) the Liberty Gardens parcel.HPIM3749.JPG view from footbridge to kids' treehouse.HPIM3752.JPG Streambed at base of treehouse tree.HPIM3803.JPG Streambed on the parcel behind (west) of the Ritchey parcel just before it flows onto Ritchey parcel.HPIM3802.JPG Streambed on the parcel behind (west) of the Ritchey parcel just before it flows onto Ritchey parcel.HPIM3745.JPG Streambed on the parcel behind (west) of the Ritchey parcel just before it flows onto Ritchey parcel.Ritchey_StreambedAtBackOfProperty.JPG Streambed along the back of the Ritchey parcel. HPIM4179.JPG and HPIM4180.JPG show the drainage ditch on the west side of 164th AVE SE where the water from the stream infiltrates. Water does not travel down this ditch to 144th. Instead, it infiltrates. This makes sense when you see the IMAP pages. This area of infiltration is inside the Aquifer Recharge Zone and the soil type changes from Alderwood on the Liberty Gardens site to Everett to the south of the site. We believe that the drainage system that the applicant has proposed has not addressed the existence of this stream at all and that construction of the stormwater system as proposed would be an inappropriate diversion of this stream from its natural discharge. If the system is to be approved as proposed, we believe that a stormwater variance is required to be approved before the Plat Hearing. Please let us know if we may assist in your investigation and evaluation of this matter. We would be happy to arrange meetings with the neighbors who would be most affected by this stream and its diversion. Thank you for your time and consideration.Gwendolyn HighC.A.R E. -Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... 206.888.7152 From: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com To: j hen nin g@ci. renton. wa. us CC: rtimmons@ci.renton. wa. usSubject: RE: Liberty GardensDate: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:23:26 -0700 Hello Jennifer, Thank you for your persistence. This one made it through. I will chat further with Rocale about the seasonal stream we have located exiting the subject parcels on the south east. For future easy reference, please never hesitate to call me at home -425.917.0117. Happy Friday!GwendolynC.A.R.E. - Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... 206.888.7152 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:53:38 -0700From: Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.usSubject: Liberty GardensTo: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Thank you for your patience as we determined the best course of action for this project. Due to the SEPA appeal, we sought legal counsel on our ability to conduct a hearing on a threshold determination issued by King County. We have determined that City of Renton needs to formally take lead agency status, and re- adopt and re-issue the SEPA threshold determination. An appeal period will commence. However, any appeals previously filed in King County will be preserved. A hearing will be held before the City's Land Use Hearings Examiner on the SEPA appeal and the preliminary plat. We are looking at a hearing date for early November. We will finalize the dates once we can confirm the availability of County staff, who will need to be present for the appeal hearing. Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner is the project manager assigned to this project. She may be reached at: 425/430-7219 or rtimmons@ci.renton.wa.us Page 1 I I Rocale Timmons -RE: Liberty Gardens Jennifer Toth Henning, AICPPlanning Manager1055 South GradyWayRenton, WA 98057425.430.7286 ( ph )j hen ning@ci. renton. wa. us CC: Jennifer Henning <jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us> Page2 [ Rocale Timmons -Aqu iferRecharge_Libe ;40190rt<,L 2.07900210 6064200010 6064ia:oto SE1.JJTHST 608420TRCT 6084.00220 ·•230!>9028 1423059097 _SE.1•1ST.Pl. '42.30S9060 '42l05ll056 t~230590ril SE 1<2NDST ardens .p df iM AP • 4S7!>00 .. ~ 72Sl700' 40 7253700· 50 !2S31L·-·· ,c· SI: 1"4THSI ~oa· !· ~·r ·:.:,e·;·y":':.• "08 .. :!':J:1.: ·:::·; ·:;:::,:• ·ce· ;·ere. •oa•3,•,,:.i..!:::: "'..i!' !'C,.t.!.::· Salce: Khg Colny lrAAP. GrourdrNater P rogram (http l/www.~rokc OCNIGIS/fMP) /f.9!>!JOT 0 HC T 7S9!>W:ll!,O 14S7!ioOHIO SC l<l:iD ST Rocale Timmons -HPIM4180 .JPG Page 1] I Rocale Timmons -HPIM3747.JPG Page 1 [§cale Timmons -HPIM3748 .JPG Pag e}] Rocale Timmons -HPIM3749 .JPG Page 1 I Rocale Timmons -HPIM3752.JPG Page 1 ] [Roca}e Timmons -HPIM3803 .JPG Page 1 ] [ Rocale T immons -HPIM3802.JPG __ Page 1 I [ Rocale Timmons -HPIM3 745.JPG p ~ I Rocale T i mmons -Ritchey StreambedAt OfProperty.JPG Pagej] Rocale Timmons -HPIM4179.JPG Page 1 I Rocale Timmons -Contours LibertyGard >df __________ Page 1] iM AP Legen d /• / County Boundal)· S11ee1s J',/ l ncar;:,ordled Area Contours t5rt dark) 1 'fTAl'· ti 1005:l'.l IOOl .l\""1!".l ':. /'/ 0:-1!!' ...(.L.] Hlgh"n-ays Par:.;:,I~ [] King Counly W-dte, Resource [ Lc1~;,s a,:l Large RM!rs Inventory Areas s1-~d·m I COMMENTS: Contoun. r Rocale Timmons -AquiferRecharge_Libe ardens.pdf Ground·.v-dl er So u rce s • I County Boundary /• T M:iuntaB1 Peaks CJ Hghv.<1ys King Coun!y Waiar Resou rce Inventory Araas iM AP Leg end P ,1 r:~I;; L La<~s it'ld l arge River.. / I :_ D..".JI, 1 J:,:,rit 1 O.e: ~17/2008 SOU""c. Khg Cculty iMAP -GrCll.W"dNalw Progam ltttp /lw.•,w ma(rokc gov/GlS/iMAP) C=<p)·2 C-:r!q.r( 3 /" l nrorµoraled Araa Shaded Re liaf p ~