HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA 09-060_Report 020
0
VULCAN #►
July 8, 2014
Vanessa Dolbee via regular mail and e-mail
Senior Planner
City of Renton
Renton City Hall — 6" Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Pan Abode Site (aka Hawk's Landing) — 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N.
Request for Master Site Plan Extension (L.UA09-060)
Dear Vanessa,
I am writing to request a one-year extension for the master site plan approval for Hawk's
Landing. As you know from our prior discussions, our purchase and sale contract with
Spence Albert fell through in the wake of the recession, but we would like to retain the
current entitlement for another year while interest from hotel developers in the site's
redevelopment is now beginning to recover. Additionally, if you have not already done so,
V V L C A N C 4 M.
please correct the contract information for this project approval to the property owner's info
as follows: Port Quendall Company, Attn: Brandon Morgan, 505 5" Ave. South, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98104.
As I understand it, if granted the one-year extension will set the expiration of the master site
plan approval to September 10, 2015, after which it cannot be extended. Please confirm
whether the master site plan can be extended and if this expiration date would be accurate.
Of course, you can feel free to contact me at (206) 342-2314 or brandonmo@vulcan._com at
any time should you have any questions for me.
Sincerely,
Brandon L. Morgan
Development Manager
cc: Vulcan: Steve Van Til, Scott Matthews (e-mail)
ECEINJEL.-i
JUL 0 9 ?q','
CITY Y;.F§'`
2
50b F Rh Ave $ Suetc 90p
Sec31!Ie,
WA 98104
206 342 2400 Tel
206 342 3000 Fax
Vanessa Dolbee
From: Spencer Alpert <spencer@alpertcapital.com>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Cc: Jeff Smyth
Subject: Re: Hawk's Landing Approved Master Site Plan #LttA.09060
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Ok, got it!!
So here are the updates re: Alpert -related entities:
Applicant:
SPENCER ALPERT
CERADIMM, LLC
701 5th AVE
Suite 7100
Seattle, WA 98107
Hawk's Landing, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ceradimm, LLC) is no longer active as an independent company and
should be deleted as a contact. Alternatively, it would have the same contact information as Ceradimm, LLC.
As to Parties of Interest, same update:
Spencer Alpert
Ceradimm, LLC
701 5th Ave.
Suite 7100
Seattle, WA 98107
Email and phone contacts are the same.
Thanks again,
Spence
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:12 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> wrote:
>
> Spencer,
> Here is what I have in the system:
> Applicant:
1
> ALPERT SPENCER
> ALPERT INTERNATIONAL, LLP
> 2442 NW MARKET ST #53
> SEATTLE, WA 98107
> 260-915-7200
> Address change 4-14-15
> Owner:
> PORT QUENDALL COMPANY
> 505 5TH AVE S #900
> SEATTLE WA
> 98104
> Contact:
> MEL A. MAERTZ
> M2 ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTURE &PLANNING
> 22002 64TH AVENUE WEST., SUITE 2C
> MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043
> 206-354-7100
> fax: 425-774-8219
> mmaertz@m2architects.net
> Contact Changed 6-12-12
> AGENT:
> JACK MCCOULLOUGH/JESSIE CLAWSON
> MCCULLOUGH HILL LEARY P.S.
> 7015TH AVENUE SUITE 7220
> SEATTLE, WA 98104
> 206.812.3388
> CONTACT
> HAWKS LANDING, LLC
> C/O DAN M ITZEI_
> 1111 CLEVELAND AVENUE, SUITE 201
> MOUNT VERNON, WA 98273
> 360.404.5020
> In addition, the Party of Records List is attached. I cannot remove anyone from the list but I can update information
and/or add people to the party of records list.
>
> With this can you let me know exactly what you would like changed/added.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Community & Economic
> Development Department Planning Division
> 1055 S Grady Way
> Renton, WA 98057
> (425)430-7314
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
* From: Spencer Alpert (mailto:spencer@alpertcapital.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:30 PM
> To: Vanessa Dolbee
2
> Cc: Jeff Smyth
> Subject: Re: Hawk's Landing Approved Master Site Plan #LUA 09060
>
> Many thanks, Vanessa,
>
> I appreciate your quick reply and apologize for the confusion over addresses.
> When we were on the phone, I thought I heard you say the party of interest for this particular file (the Hawk's Landing
project) was listed as Spencer Alpert AND Alpert International, LLLP.
>
> What I meant to impart was, if that is correct, that "Spencer Alpert" should remain a party of interest and my personal
mailing address is changed only in replacing "722" with "53". However, in regard to Ceradimm, LLC, that entity has a
different address, which is the 5th Avenue address. Does that make sense, one address for me personally and another
for the company? If you need to designate one address, though, please use 701 5th Avenue, Suite 7100, Seattle, WA
95144.
> If I haven't sufficiently straightened out my contradictory statements so your records can now be complete and
accurate, please let me know. 1f you need my official title with Ceradimm, LLC, it is Chief Operating Officer.
> Incidentally, I had a most pleasant conversation with Lance Lopes yesterday, and he extends his best. You may know
he left the Seahawks and took a similar position at UW. And I'm meeting with Jack tomorrow and will bring him up to
date as well. I always enjoy seeing Jack - he is constantly full of good ideas!
> Best regards,
> Spence
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> wrote:
>> Spence,
>> items 1 and 2 in the below e-mail are correct. Item 3., 1 changed the address to 2442 NW Market St. #53 Per your
request over the phone. As such, our system has been updated accordingly and no longer uses "#722". 1 am unclear on
your request for item 4. Below. Would you like me to change the contact for the project to Ceradium LLC and the
associated address, instead of Alpert International, LLLP?
>> Thank you,
»
>> Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Community & Economic
>> Development Department Planning Division
>> 1055 S Grady Way
>> Renton, WA 98057
>> (425)430-7314
»
»
>> -----Original Message-----
» From: Spencer Alpert [mailto:spencer@alpertcapital.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:29 PM
>> To: Vanessa Dolbee
>> Cc: Jeff Smyth
>> Subject: Hawk's Landing Approved Master Site Plan #LUA 09060
»
>> Hi Vanessa,
7>
>> Per our conversation of yesterday, I am writing to confirm as follows:
»
>> I. The Master Site Plan for the Hawk's Landing hotel project, as previously approved, has been renewed and is
currently valid through September, 2015.
»
>> 2. The Site Plan for the hotel has expired; however a new Site Plan can be approved administratively by the City of
Renton so long as the Master Site Plan is current.
»
>> 3. The Applicant and Party of Interest for the Hawk's Landing project and the approved Master Site Plan is Spencer
Alpert and Alpert International, LLLP, whose mailing address is shown on City of Renton records as 2442 NW Market St.,
#722, Seattle, WA 98107.
»
>> 4. All the assets of Alpert International, LLLP, including the Approved Master Site Plan as granted by the City of
Renton for the Hawk's Landing project (File #LUA 09060), as well as the registered Trademark issued by the U.S. Patent
Office for Hawk's Landing, have been acquired by Ceradimm, LLC, a Washington limited liability company whose
business address is 701 5th Avenue, Suite 7100, Seattle, WA 98104. The assignment of the Hawk's Landing Trademark
from Alpert International, LLLP, to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ceradimm, LLC has been approved by the U.S. Patent
Office.
>> 5. Accordingly, per this email the City of Renton is requested to update your records to reflect the current status of
the Applicant, Party of interest and Owner of the Approved Master Site Plan for the Hawk's Landing project, File # LUA
09060 as set forth in Item 4. above.
»
>> 6. To the best of my knowledge, ownership of the Hawk's Landing property remains unchanged per King County Deed
Records.
>> Thank you for all your assistance over the years in processing the Hawk's Landing file, and I look forward to working
with you further toward the ultimate success of the Hawk's Landing project. I would appreciate confirmation of items 1
and 2 above and that City of Renton records have been revised and updated as requested in Item 5.
»
>> Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information in regard to this matter.
»
>> Best regards,
»
>> Spencer Alpert
>> 2442 NW Market St #53
>> Seattle, WA 98107
>> 206-915-7200
»
>> Sent from my iPhone
> <POR 09-060.doc>
Denis LawCltY ai
00
Mayor �� S Y O
I + +
L
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E. "Chi p"Vin cent, Administrator
July 9, 2014
Brandon L. Morgan.
Vulcan
505 Fifth Ave. S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
SUBJECT: Hawks Landing Master Plan LUA09-060
Dear Mr. Morgan:
This office has reviewed your request (dated July 8, 2014) to extend an approved master
plan (File No. LUA09-060) that will expire on September 10, 2014.
Pursuant to RMC 4-9=2001.1, the municipal code allows the administrator to issue a
single one (1) year extension. Therefore, your master plan extension request is
approved. The Hawks Landing master plan will now expire on September 10, 2015.
You should be aware this office is empowered to issue only one such extension. Pleas&
feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7314 should you have any further questions or
comments regarding this extension.
Sincerely,
V
Jennifer Henning, AICP
Planning Director
cc: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator
Vanessa Do.lbee, Current Planning Manager
City of Renton file LUA09-060
Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov
July 8, 2014
Vanessa Dolbee
Senior Planner
City of Renton
Renton City Hall -- 6" Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
via regular mail and e-mail
Re: Pan Abode Site (aka Hawk's Landing) - 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N.
Request for Master Site Plan Extension (LUA09-060)
Dear Vanessa,
>�
VULCAN IP
City of Renton
P!anninq Division
+:'. 0 8 �0,14
ifl�� ; U VV ELK
am writing to request a one-year extension for the master site plan approval for Hawk's
Landing. As you know from our prior discussions, our purchase and sale contract with
Spence Albert fell through in the wake of the recession, but we would like to retain the
current entitlement for another year while interest from hotel developers in the site's
redevelopment is now beginning to recover. Additionally, if you have not already done so,
please correct the contract information for this project approval to the property owner's info
as follows: Port Quendall Company, Attn: Brandon Morgan, 505 5" Ave. South, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98104.
As I understand it, if granted the one-year extension will set the expiration of the master site
plan approval to September 10, 2015, after which it cannot be extended. Please confirm
whether the master site plan can be extended and if this expiration date would be accurate,
Of course, you can feel free to contact me at (206) 342-2314 or brand onmo(&vulcan.corn at
any time should you have any questions for me.
Sincerely,
Brandon L. Morgan
Development Manager
cc: Vulcan: Steve Van Til, Scott Matthews (e-mail)
505 Fihh Ave S Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
206 342 2000 Teo
206 342 3000 Fax
V U L C A H. C 0 M
C
Hearing Examiner's Decision
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Hawks Landing LLC
Extension Request
DECISION
LUA09-060; ECF, SA -M, SA -H
Summary
The Applicant has applied for a two year extension of the expiration period for a site plan approved
on September 10, 2009. The extension is approved to September 10, 2013.
Exhibits
The following documents were considered in evaluating the application for final plat:
I. Applicant's Request for Extension of the Site Plan Review approval, date August
30, 2011.
2. September 10, 2009 decision approving site plan and master site plan
applications; LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H.
3. Email string between staff and examiner ending 1013111.
4, Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H.
5. 8131111 assignment request for LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H.
PUD EXTENSION - I
Findings of Fact
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Procedural:
1. Applicant_ Hawks Landing, LLC, assignee of site plan approval from original applicant,
Alpert International, LLP.
2. Hearing. RMC 4-9-200(L)(2) provides that the Examiner may require a public hearing at his
discretion for the site plan extension request. Given that permit extension requests are routinely
given in this challenging economic climate and that there is nothing in the record to suggest that the
impacts of the project would materially change over an additional two year period, there is no need
for a hearing on this extension request.
Substantive:
3. Descri tion of Proposal. The Applicant is requesting extension of the two year expiration
period for site plan approval as governed by RMC 4-9-200(L)(2). The hearing examiner decision
approving the site plan is Ex. 2.
Conclusions of Law
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-200(L)(2) provides that the hearing examiner may
grant an extension of the two year expiration period for site plan approvals.
Substantive:
2. Applicable Standards. RMC 4-9-200(L)(2) provides that the Examiner may grant a two year
extension on site plan approval expiration upon a showing of "good cause". The Applicant
references the current economic climate as the reason for additional time. The severe economic
climate has routinely served as grounds for extension of permit expiration and there is nothing in
this case to compel a different result. The extension is granted.
3. Master Site Plan Extension. In the email correspondence of Ex. 3, staff has also requested
that the Examiner clarify what the expiration period is for the master site plan. RMC 4-9-
200(L)(1) requires the Examiner to set an expiration period for a proposed master plan within a
two to five year period. Staff referenced a five year expiration period in its staff report on the
master site plan application, but the Examiner never set an expiration period in his decision.. The
current Examiner does not have the authority to clarify the Examiner's 2009 decision approving
the master site plan application. The issue of what expiration period applies when the Examiner
fails to address it as required by RMC 4-9-200(L)(1) is a code interpretation that should be
submitted to the Community and Economic Development Administrator under RMC 4-1-080(A).
That decision may then be brought to the Examiner by administrative appeal under RMC 4-8-
110(E)(1)(a). Another way to address the situation would be to amend the site plan decision with
PUD EXTENSION - 2
I the addition of a specified expiration period as a major adjustment, providing the public an
2 opportunity to comment on any proposed expiration period.
3
DECISION
4
5 The request to extend the September 10, 2011 expiration date of site plan approval LUA09-060;
6 ECF, SA -M, SA -H to September 10, 2013 is approved.
7 DATED this 3rd day of October, 2011.
8
9
Phil A. Olbrechts
10 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
11
12
13 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
14
RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to
15 the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision
16 to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
17 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
18 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7,'
19 floor, (425) 430-6510.
20 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
21
22
23
24
25
26
PUD EXTENSION - 3
August 31, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL,
Vanessa Dolbee
Senior Planner City 4f Renton
City of Renton Planning and Development P'tarrl'ing l3i�ision
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Ass ent re nest for Site Plan Review approval
4350 ke Washington Blvd. North
Dear Vanessa:
We write this letter to request that the permits previously issued for Alpert International, LLP be
assigned to Hawks Landing, LLC.
The new contact information for the entity is:
Hawks Landing, LLC
c/o Dan Mitzel
1111 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 201
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Phone: (360) 404-5020
With a copy to:
Jack McCullough/Jessie Clawson
McCullough Hill Leary P.S.
7015" Avenue Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 812-3388
Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.
incerely,
Jessica M. Clawson
V
cc: Dan Mitzel, Hawks Landing LLC
Spence Alpert, Alpert International, LLP
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 - 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.8123389 • www.mhseat@ecom
Vanessa Dolbee � (IfA 6111 -C,(p6i
From: Spencer Alpert [spencer@alpertcapital,com]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 7:43 AM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Cc: Dan Mitzel; Dave Allegre; ceradimm@gmail. com-, Jack McCullough; Jeff Smyth; Shaunta
Knibb; Clint Chase
Subject: Hawk's Landing, LLC
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Vanessa:
This is to confirm that the Purchase and Sale Agreement currently in place for this property has been assigned
by Alpert International, LLLP to Hawk's Landing, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, which will act
as developer of the project. Also, the office address and primary contact for this entity will be c/o Dan R,
Mitzel, Member at his address, which I believe you have in the file.
Accordingly, we would request that all city documents pertaining to the Hawk's Landing project be re -titled in
the name of Hawk's Landing, LLC as far as city records are concerned.
Please let me know if you need anything further in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Spencer Alpert
for Alpert International, LLLP
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vanessa
My contact info is as flows:
Dan Mitzel [danmitzei@hansellmitzel.com]
Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:21 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
RE: New Contact for Hawk's Landing
Dan Mitzel
1111 Cleveland Ave
Suite 201
Mount Vernon WA. 98273
Office phone 360-4042050
Cell 360-661-2237
Email: danmitzel@mitzel.net
Tomorrow I am meeting with Steve Lee and PSE at 9:30 in the morning and I have our monthly meeting scheduled for
10:30.
Thanks!
Dan
From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@)Rentonwa-aoyl
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 11, 54 AM
To: Dan Mitzel
Subject: New Contact for Hawk's Landing
Dan,
The City received a request from Spencer Alpert to change the contact for the Land Use LUA09-060 Hawk's Landing to
you. However, Spence did not provide address, phone, or e-mail information in the letter. I do have some of this
information for you but did not want to make assumptions about your preferred contact information. Could you please
provide the City your preferred mailing address, e-mail, and phone number to be used in the update of the Hawk's
Landing file. Once we receive this information I will update our file and our system to reflect your request.
Thank you,
Vanessa Do5ee
Senior Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development
City of Renton
Renton City Hall - 6th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
1
425.430.7314
Hawk's L ng Hotel Conditions of Developme ',ummary)
LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
Project Condition
Source of
When Compliance
Party
Notes
Condition
is Required
Responsible
The applicant shall comply
ERC
During Project
Applicant/
with the recommendations
Construction
Contractor
found in the following
geotechnical reports:
"Geotechnical Engineering
Study" prepared by Earth
Consultants, Inc. dated
February 6, 1991;
"Geotechnical Investigation —
Draft Report" prepared by
Materials Testing &
Consulting, Inc. dated June 4,
2-009; and "Subsurface
Exploration and Geotechnical
Engineering Study — Proposed
May Creek Office Building",
prepared by Hart Crowser &
Associates, Inc., dated October
8, 1985.
The applicant shall be required
ERC
During Project
Applicant/
to comply with the
Construction
Contractor
recommendations included in
the "Wetland/Stream Study",
prepared by Graham -Bunting
Associates, dated May 12,
2009.
This project shall be required
ERC
During Project
Applicant/
to comply with the
Construction
Contractor
requirements found in the
2005 King County Surface
Water Design Manual.
The applicant shall be required
ERC
During Project
Applicant/
to provide a Temporary
Construction
Contractor
Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan (TESCP) designed
pursuant to the Department of
Ecology's Erosion and
Sediment Control
Requirements outlined in
Volume 11 of the Stormwater
Hawk's L ng Hotel Conditions of Developme ammar-Y)
1,UA09-060, FCF, SA -M, SA -H
Management Manual prior to
issuance of Construction
Permits. This condition shall
be subject to the review and
approval of the Development
Services Division Plan Review
Project Manager.
If any Native American
ERC
During Project
Applicant/
grave(s) or
Construction
Contractor
archaeological/cultural
resources (Indian artifacts) are
found, all construction activity
shall stop and the
owner/developer shall
immediately notify the City of
Renton planning department,
concerned Tribes' cultural
committees, and the -
Washington State Department
of Archeological and Historic
Preservation.
The applicant shall coordinate
ERC
Prior to Building
Applicant
with the City of Renton and
Permit approval
WSDOT to determine the
applicant's contribution for
the following recommended
mitigation measures:
a. Participation in the
construction of
additional lanes at the
NE 44th Street/1-405
Northbound Ramps.
b. Construction of a
center merge/refuge
lane on Lake
Washington Boulevard
between Seahawks
Way and the
southbound ramps.
c. Shared cost of the
traffic signal
Hawk's L ng Hotel ("onditions of Develop me. urnmary)
LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
installation at the NE
44th Street/1-405
Southbound Ramp.
The contribution shall be
determine by a supplemental
traffic impact analysis,
prepared by the applicant and
approved by the City, which
can quantify the applicant's
impacts to the anticipated
existing 2011 LOS "F"
condition. The impact analysis
and agreement shall be
completed prior to building
permit approval.
The applicant shall pay a
ERC
Prior to issuance of
Applicant
Traffic Mitigation Fee in the
building permits
amount of $75 for each new
net daily trip or any new
Transportation Impact Fee the
City has adopted at the time of
building permit issuance.
The applicant shall provide a
ERC
Prior to
Applicant/
left -turn lane along Lake
Construction
Contractor
Washington Boulevard, which
Permit Approval/
shall be designed in
during
accordance with the City of
construction.
Renton Development Services
division and final design shall
be approved by the City's
Development Services project
manager, prior to construing
permit approval.
The northerly site access point
ERC
Prior to
Applicant/
(the existing Pan Abode
Construction
Contractor
access) shall be limited to
Permit Approval/
right -in right -out traffic
during
movements.
construction.
The applicant shall pay a Fire
ERC
Prior to issuance of
Applicant
Mitigation Fee based $0.52
building permits
per new commercial building
Hawk's L ng Hotel Conditions of Developme ummary)
LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
square foot or any new Fire
Impact Fee the City has
adopted at the time of
building permit issuance.
Haul hours are limited from
Code
During Project
Applicant/
8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday
Construction
Contractor/
through Friday
Builder
Within 30 days of completion
Code
During Project
Applicant/
of grading work the applicant
Construction
Contractor/
shall hydroseed or plant
Builder
appropriate vegetation.
Construction hours are from
Code
During Project
Applicant/
7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday
Construction
Contractor/
through Friday and 9:00 am to
Builder
8:00 pm on Saturday and no
work is allowed on Sundays.
A detailed landscape plan and
Master
Prior to Building
Applicant
irrigation plan shall be
Site
Permit Approval
prepared by a landscape
Plan/Site
architect registered in the
Plan
State of Washington, a
certified nurseryman, or other
similarly qualified professional,
and be submitted by the
applicant and approved by the
Current Planning Project
Manager prior to issuance of
the building permit.
The applicant shall provide a
Master
Prior to Building
Applicant
revised site plan that depicts 7
Site
Permit Approval
ADA parking spaces. The
Plan/Site
revised site plan shall be
Plan
submitted by the applicant
and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager
prior to issuance of
construction permit.
Hawk's L ng Hotel Conditions of Developme ummary)
LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
The applicant shall submit an
Master
Prior to
Applicant
access driveway grade cross
Site
Construction
section indicating compliance
Plan/Site
Permit Approval
with RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be
Plan
submitted by the applicant
and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager
prior to issuance of
construction permit.
The street vacation, file # VAC-
Master
Prior to Certificate
Applicant
09-001, shall be completed
Site
of Final Occupancy
prior to Certificate of Final
Plan/Site
Occupancy.
Plan
The applicant shall redesign
Master
Prior to Building
Applicant
the west elevation to feature a
Site
Permit Approval
pedestrian -oriented facade.
Plan/Site
The new elevation drawings
Plan
shall be submitted to the
Department of Community
and Economic Development
project manager for review
and approval prior to building
permit approval.
The applicant shall submit a
Master
Prior to Building
Applicant
new site plant that indicates
Site
Permit Approval
the entire pedestrian
Plan/Site
pathways through the parking
Plan
lot as a different material or
texture from the adjacent
paving prior to building permit
approval. This site plan shall
be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Community
and Economic Development
project manager.
Hawk's i ing Hotel Conditions of Developme summary)
LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
The applicant shall provide an
Master
Prior to
Applicant
updated site plan to the City of
Site
Construction
Renton Current Planning
Plan/Site
Permit Approval
Project Manager indicating 12-
Plan
foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -
foot wide landscape strip
along the frontage of the 3.07
acres of the development site,
prior to construction permit
approval.
The applicant shall be required
Master
Prior to Building
Applicant
to provide a lighting plan that
Site
Permit Approval
adequately provides for public
Plan/Site
safety without casting
Plan
excessive glare on adjacent
properties to the Current
Planning Project Manager for
review and approval at the
time of building permit review.
The applicant shall comply
P & D
Prior to
Applicant
with the King County Surface
Appeal
Construction
Water Design Manual in
Decision
Permit Approval
treating stormwater before
conveying it to the roadside
ditch.
The applicant and staff shall
P & D
Prior to Building
Applicant
work on a plan that
Appeal
Permit Approval
accommodates additional
Decision
landscaping, even temporary
landscaping in planter boxes
with some larger trees to
screen or breakup the view of
the background unsightly
portions of the site east and
west of the parking areas.
Vanessa Dolbee
From: Vanessa Dolbee
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 02:11 PM
To: 'Karen Walter'
Subject: RE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and
Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M)
Attachments: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use ERC Rpt2 09-060.pdf
Karen,
Please see my response in red below. Let me know if you have further questions.
Regards,
Vanessa Dolbee
(Acting) Senior Planner
City of Renton
Department of Community & Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 01:49 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: FW: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed
Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M)
Vanessa,
Did you ever respond to the email below? I can't seem to find record of a response in our files or email.
Thank you,
Karen Walter
MITFD
From: Karen Walter
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 12:02 PM
To: 'Vanessa Dolbee'
Subject: RE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed
Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M)
Vanessa,
Thank you for your email. For whatever reason, we did not receive any responses from the applicant. A couple of
follow-up questions.
5o the rain gardens as originally proposed are no longer included in the project or have been modified. Your response
wasn't very clear. Will there be a detention pond in addition to the rain gardens (if still proposed)? The rain gardens are
still a part of the proposal, however the design of them have changed because of a number of appeals. The rain garden
wOuld have an impervious liner in th om so that runoff would riot be able U gyrate into the ground water (as
such, they may not act like a typical rain garden). In my previous response, I indicated that the applicant would be
required to meet King County 2005 Surface Water Design Manual, and all regulations within this manual as it pertains to
stormwater detention and water quality. The exact manner in which the applicant will comply with this manual has not:
been identified fully. An updated Technical Information Report would be required at time of construction permit
application. At this time, the City's Stormwater Division would ensure compliance with the rrranual for both stormwater
detention and water quality -
Also, I apologize but the copy of the landscape plan is too small to read. I tried to modify it several different ways and
still couldn't enlarge it so that it legible. Is it possible to get it in a PDF format instead of Word? Please find attached a
copy of the entire Environmental Review Report (which is in PDF format), you will find the landscape plan near the end
as an attachment to the report.
Thanks again,
Karen Walter
M ITFD
...... ......... .
From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:54 AM
To: Karen Walter
Subject: RE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed
Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M)
Karen,
If you didn't receive a reply, my apologizes. It was my understanding that the applicant was to provide you with a
response.
With that said ... the following is the City's response to your questions:
1. The environmental checklist indicates that the project is not within the 100 year floodplain of May Creek.
However, it appears that a small portion of the site may be within the 100 year floodplain per King County's IMAP
(See attached map). Please clarify if this project is within the 100 year floodplain. If it is, please clarify if there will
be filling within the 100 year floodplain and if so, what is the proposed mitigation for this fill.
The project is not designed to be within the 100 year floodplain. Fill should not be placed within the 100 year
floodplain as proposed,
2. In item 3.c.1, the environmental checklist indicates that treated stormwater from the rain gardens will be routed to
the site's historic discharge location in the southwest corner. Does this mean that there will be no detention of
this stormwater? Please clarify.
The rain gardens were included in the original proposal. After a number of appeals the rain gardens as
originally proposed has changed. The applicant is required to meet the 2005 KCSWDM, and the City will review
the project under these requirements. If detention is required per the 2005 KCSWDM, the City will required
detention.
3. The checklist in section 3.0 also describes a portion the stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces will
be routed to a vault and used for on-site irrigation. How much stormwater is estimated to be used for irrigation and
how much will be treated and discharged without detention?
At this stage of review the exact calculation for treatment has not yet been determined.
4. Where will the proposed 83 trees be planted? The checklist references a conceptual landscape pian but it was not
included in our packet of materials.
See the attached landscape plan
Thank you for yon€r comments on the subject project.
Vanessa Dolbee
(Acting) Senior Planner
City of Renton
Department of Community & Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
. ... ......... ........... . ... . .. . ... .... .........
From: Karen Walter [maiIto: Karen.Walter@muckleshoot.nsn. us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 03:25 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: RE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed
Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M)
Hi Vanessa,
Did you ever get a chance to reply to this email below? We don't seem to have a record of response.
Thanks,
Karen Walter
M ITFD
From: Karen Walter
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:07 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of
Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M)
Vanessa,
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application materials including the
environmental checklist and the Wetland/Stream Study for the above referenced project. Thank you for sending the
Wetland and Stream study as it facilitated our review. Based on the materials that we have reviewed, we have some
questions about this project.
1. The environmental checklist indicates that the project is not within the 100 year floodplain of May Creek.
However, it appears that a small portion of the site may be within the 100 year floodplain per King County's IMAP
(See attached map). Please clarify if this project is within the 100 year floodplain. If it is, please clarify if there will
be filling within the 100 year floodplain and if so, what is the proposed mitigation for this fill.
2. In item 3.c.1, the environmental checklist indicates that treated stormwater from the rain gardens will be routed to
the site's historic discharge location in the southwest corner. Does this mean that there will be no detention of
this stormwater? Please clarify.
3. The checklist in section 3.c.1 also describes a portion the stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces will
be routed to a vault and used for on-site irrigation_ How much stormwater is estimated to be used for irrigation and
how much will be treated and discharged without detention?
3
4. Where will the proposed 83 ie planted? The checklist references a ptual landscape plan but it was not
included in our packet of materials.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses to the questions above.
Thank you,
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
39015 172"' Ave SE
Auburn, WA 96092
253-876-3116
December 7, 2009
Monday, 7 p.m.
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
M I N Q T E S
Council Chambers
Renton City Hail
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL OF
RANDY CORMAN, Council President; GREG TAYLOR; RICH ZWICKER; TERRI
COUNCILMEMBERS
BRIERE; KING PARKER; DON PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER.
CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE
DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ANN
NIELSEN, Assistant City Attorney; JASON SETH, Deputy City Clerk; GREGG
ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; IWEN WANG, Finance and
Information Services Administrator; ALEX PiETSCH, Community and Economic
Development Administrator; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; PETER RENNER,
Facilities Director, SUZANNE DALE ESTEY, Economic Development Director;
CHIP VINCENT, Planning Director; CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH and DEPUTY CHIEF
TIM TROXEL, Police Department.
APPEAL
Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report
Planning & Development
regarding the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Site Plan application (LUA-09-060).
Committee:
The Committee heard this appeal on 12/3/2009. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.,
Appeal: Hawk's Landing Mixed
the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which
Use, Alpert International &
l.consists of, but is not limited to, the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of
Nicholson, SA -09-060
Appeal, and the submissions and presentations made by the respective parties.
+Background
The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N. in Renton,
WA, and is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The site is surrounded to the north
and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-
�way for f-405, and to the south by an underdeveloped parcel that contains May
'Creek (a Class 1 water body) with at least two associated wetlands (Category 2).
Alpert International, LLP ("Applicant") seeks to develop 3.07 acres on the
northerly portion of the subject site with "Hawk's Landing" hotel, a five -story
hotel that would include retail, fitness center, spa and restaurant.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
'Applicant submitted a request for SEPA review and Master Site Plan/Site Plan
review for the proposed Hawk's Landing hotel. The Environmental Review
Committee issued a DNS -M with ten (10) mitigation conditions. Brad
Nicholson, and South End Gives Back ("Appellant") timely appealed the SEPA
determination. On 8/25/2009, a public hearing was held before the Hearing
Examiner on the SEPA appeal and the Master Site Plan/Site Plan. Appellant
appeared and presented at both portions of the hearing. The Hearing Examiner
affirmed the SEPA determination and approved the Master Site Plan and Site
Plan subject to ten (10) conditions.
Both Applicant and Appellant then filed respective motions for reconsideration.
3 Appellant also submitted a request to include new evidence, to wit, the
"Second Declaration of Joel Massman" their expert witness. Applicant filed a
I
Motion to Strike this declaration. On 10/19/2009 the Hearing Examiner issued
the reconsideration affirming his original decision with a small modification to
December 7, 2009 Renton City Council Minutes
Page 368
condition #10 of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling, as it pertains to street
trees and landscaping on the remainder of the project site. He also granted the
Motion to Strike, denying Appellants' request to have the Second Declaration
included in the record. Both parties timely appealed both the SEPA and the
Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION DECISION
Having considered the comments made by the respective parties, and having
reviewed the submissions, files and evidence in this matter, the Committee
recommends that the Hearing Examiner's ruling to grant the Motion to Strike
be affirmed, and that the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the SEPA
appeal be affirmed.
The Committee further recommends that the Council finds that the Hearing
Examiner made a substantial error of law in that the Hearing Examiner
erroneously required "best available science" as a standard for stormwater
treatment. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the following
modifications be made to the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision, but
otherwise affirm the approval of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan and conditions.
Conclusion 5: ... Those water should be handled with respect and
appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain
garden" feature is used. The applicant must comply with the City of
Renton's standards regarding stormwater (the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manual). The applieant use best available
Conclusion 6: --- The Master Plan process does include 'master planning'
for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its
footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what
appears to be a quality image. ,T„erefeFe, crheen ainTr^ ng acFeage
rn lird „.rThe Master Plan cannot
escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old,
deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This
office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in
planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of
the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. Additia pall,. the appheapt should plant addi+in naI strn�t
f e aleRg the FeFRBiRiRg Lake 1 ashiRg4e Boulevard frepta of the
tie and speciesR the R.,.+h fFOntage
Decision Condition 9: ... The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King
County Surface Water Design Manual he-st ay-ailabin sGience in
treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. T4e
r.teRtir.r. .detentionOF garden" feature in .,rrlr.rtr, Fe duce
polls'` �e+�tecing tlae ditchandthen May Greek. The development
shall not ee aFd,'za May GFae and1sp Lake Washington with poll utantr
December 7, 2009 Renton City Council Minutes Page 369
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Decision Condition 10: ... The applicant and staff shall work on a plan
that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of
the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter
boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the
background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking
areas. ,
in the event that the City does not plant street
+ aleng the remaining Lake Wa5hisgtergRn..ln�.�.rarl 4ent�Ste.o..tha
..s.. c. ...
the appI' + hall Plant r rh tFeE!S at the SaM matin and species
Planted along the er-th frontage.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative report
summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs
adopted as part of its business plan for 2009 and beyond. Item noted included:
The Highlands Neighborhood Community Center will be open 12/8/2009
from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. to serve residents as a warming smelter. Residents in
need of assistance during regular business hours should call Human
Services at 425-430-6650. After 5 p.m. call 425-430-7500.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
William Taylor (King County) expressed opposition to the dismissal of the Red
Citizen Comment: Taylor -
Mill Annexation proposal. He opined that the Fairwood incorporation effort is
Greater Fairwood Community
not financially feasible with or without the Red Mill area. Mr. Taylor also
Proposed Election
commented that King County spends 70% of its budget on the judicial system
and only 10% on urban areas. He remarked that the City of Renton has the
infrastructure and ability to provide services to Fairwood residents.
Discussion ensued regarding King County's likelihood of supporting the Red Mill
annexation, the City's inability to take advantage of the State sales tax credit if
the Red Mill area was annexed singularly, the importance of the tax credit for
providing services in the area, and the 180 -day signature validity period.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows
the listing. At the request of Councilmember Taylor, Item 6.c. was removed for
separate consideration.
Council Meeting Minutes of
Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/23/2009. Council concur.
11/23/2009
Appointment: Airport Advisory
Mayor Law appointed Robert Brahm to the Airport Advisory Committee,
Committee
Airport -at -Large primary position, for a term expiring on 5/7/2012 (position
previously held by Greg Garner); and Ulf Goranson, Airport -at -Large alternate
position, for a term expiring on 5/7/2012 (position previously held by Mike
Rogan). Refer to Community Services Committee.
City Clerk: eCityGov Alliance
City Clerk recommended adoption of a resolution to establish the Small Works
Small Works Roster &
Roster and Limited Public Works processes, and authorize the use of the
Processes
eCityGov Alliance rosters for City purchases and contracting. Refer to Finance
Committee.
CAG: 09-187, Sidewalk
City Clerk reported bid opening on 11/30/2009 for CAG -09-187, Sidewalk
Rehabilitation & Replacement,
Rehabilitation & Replacement Project; 25 bids; engineer's estimate
Archer Construction
$452,818.95; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to
the low bidder, Archer Construction, Inc., in the amount of $288,581.23.
Council concur.
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
December 7, 2009
In re Appeal of HAWKS LANDING
by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back
LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
(Referred November 16, 2009)
The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on December 3,
2009. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110F, the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to
the record, which consists of, but is not limited to, the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of
Appeal and the submissions and presentations made by the respective parties.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N. in Renton, WA, and is
approximately 7.8 acres in size. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing
Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, and to the south by an
underdeveloped parcel that contains May Creek (a Class 1 water body) with at least two
associated wetlands (category 2). Alpert International LLP ("Applicant") seeks to develop 3.07
acres on the northerly portion of the subject site with "Hawks Landing" hotel, a 5 story, hotel
that would include retail, fitness center, spa and a restaurant.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Applicant submitted a request for SEPA review and Master Site Plan/Site Plan review for the
proposed Hawks Landing hotel. The Environmental Review Committee issued a DNS -M with
ten (10) mitigation conditions. Brad Nicholson, and South End Gives Back ("Appellant") timely
appealed the SEPA determination. On August 25, 2009, a public hearing was held before the
Hearing Examiner on the SEPA appeal and the Master Site Plan/Site Plan. Appellant appeared
and presented at both portions of the hearing. The Hearing Examiner affirmed the SEPA
determination and approved the Master Site Plan and Site Plan subject to ten (10) conditions.
Both Applicant and Appellant then filed respective motions for reconsideration. Appellant also
submitted a request to include new evidence, to wit, the "Second Declaration of Joel Massman"
their expert witness. Applicant filed a Motion to Strike this declaration. On October 19, 2009,
the Hearing Examiner issued the reconsideration affirming his original decision with a small
modification to condition 10 of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling, as it pertains to street
trees and landscaping on the remainder of the project site. He also granted the Motion to
Strike, denying Appellant's request to have the Second Declaration included into the record.
Both parties timely appealed both the SEPA and the Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling to the City
Council.
Hawks Landing Appeal
December *, 2009
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION DECISION:
Having considered the comments made by the respective parties, and having reviewed the
submissions, files and evidence in this matter, the Committee recommends that the Hearing
Examiner's ruling to grant the Motion to Strike be affirmed, and that the Hearing Examiner's
decision regarding the SEPA appeal be affirmed.
The Committee further recommends that the Council finds that the Hearing Examiner made a
substantial error of law in that the Hearing Examiner erroneously required "best available
science" as a standard for stormwater treatment. Accordingly, the Committee recommends
that the following modifications be made to the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision, but
otherwise affirm the approval of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan and conditions.
Conclusion 5: .... Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately
treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used.
The applicant must comply with the City of Renton's standards regarding
stormwater (the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual). The applieam
Conclusion 6: ....The Master Plan process does include 'master planning' for the
entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare
nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image.
The
Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old,
deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes
that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to
screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and
west of the parking areas. Additienall,
trees alengtha remaining Lake -Washingtej-RauIevard-fi;ekage at the same Fate
and species as 99R *-he R9Fth fFentage-.
Decision Condition 9: The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface
Water Design Manual use best available in treating stormwater before
conveying it to the roadside ditch.
meaRs iReladingwater retentien, deteatiee-ter "Fain gaFdeA" feaWiFe iR IBFdeF tv
9-4R tho 54P_'s_PaVed OF
treated lands. . - -.
Hawks Landing Appeal
December *.2009
Page 3
Decision Condition 10: The applicant and staff shall worts on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan
application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to
screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and
west of the parking areas. n dditi nail .:n the o Rt that th—P City does net .,k_M4
KING PARKER, Chair
-Not in Attendance -
TERRI BRIERE Vice Chair
F
RICH ZWICKER, Me r
cc: Alex Pietsch
Chip Vincent
Jennifer Henning
Vanessa Dolbee
Fred Kaufman
Appellant Brad Nicholson/SEGB (via Attorney Keith Scully)
Applicant Alpert International LLC (via Attorney Jack McCollough)
Ann Nielsen
Cynthia Moya
From:
Vanessa Dolbee
Sent:
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:00 PM
To:
Cynthia Moya
Subject:
Hawks Landing Appeal Party of Record
Cindy,
A gentlemen by the name of Larry Reymonn would like to be a party of Record for the Hawks Landing Appeal. Could we
please add him to the list. Additionally, has any publications and/or notification been sent out for the Hearing? Mr.
Reymonn would like to attend the hearing, and I would like to make sure he is informed.
Party of Record information:
Larry Reymonn
1313 N 38th 5t.
Renton, WA 98056
(425)228-8511
Fulmen8C@hotmail.com
Thank you,
Vanessa Dolbee
x7314
November 16, 2009
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes of
11/9/2009
Renton City Council Minutes
Page 347
City View Church, and is also on City rights-of-way. She remarked that 58
people participated in the project for a total of 64 working days. Ms. Green
also stated that over 745 volunteer hours were provided, and 450 native
draught tolerant plants were planted in the area.
Councilmember Taylor remarked that this project epitomizes the intent of the
Neighborhood Grant Program and expressed appreciation for Ms. Green's hard
work coordinating the project.
Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows
the listing.
Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/9/2009. Council concur.
Appeal: Hawk's Landing Mixed City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Hawk's
Use, Alpert International & Landing Mixed Use Environmental and Site Plan application (SA -09-060); two
Nicholson, SA -09-060 appeals filed - one by Alpert International, Seattle; and the other by Brad
Nicholson, South End Gives Back (SEGB), Renton; both accompanied by
required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee.
CED: Energy Efficiency Block Community and Economic Development Department requested authorization
Grant Funds, US Department to accept $617,500 in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds
of Energy
from the U.S. Department of Energy to complete various energy efficiency
projects. Council concur.
Legislature: 2010 Council
Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval
Agenda & Statement of Policy
of the 2010 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions, which
Positions
serve as guidance for City staff during the State legislative session. Refer to
Committee of the Whole.
Planning: Sunset Area
Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval
Community Investment
of the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy and to implement its
Strategy
recommendations as resources become available. Refer to Committee of the
Whole.
Community Services: 2009
Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the
Holiday Lights, Integrated
amount of $64,682.75 with Integrated Facilities Management for the 2009
Facilities Management
Holiday Lights program. Council concur.
Finance: Electronic Fund
Finance and Information Services Department recommended an update to
Signatory Authority Update
Resolution #3945 regarding Electronic Fund Transfers signatory authority to
avoid workflow interruptions due to staffing reductions. Refer to Finance
Committee
MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE
CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Corman presented a reported recommending concurrence in
Committee of the Whole the following 2010 Budget recommendations:
Budget: 2010 Annual City of Property Tax Levy: A revised preliminary property tax worksheet provided by
Renton King County has estimated property taxes of $31,800,000, based on
$31,090,000 of 2009 base levy with 0% increase, plus $360,000 in new
construction levy, $260,000 in annexation levy, and $90,000 in re -levying of
prior year funds.
a
S
OTY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BI
Al Jt: r
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of: 11/16/2009
Dept/Div/Board.... AJLS/City Clerk
Agenda Status
Staff Contact........ Bonnie I. Walton
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Appeals (2) of Hearing Examiner's decision dated
Correspondence..
9/10/2009 regarding Hawk's Landing Mixed Use
Ordinance .............
Environmental & Site Plan Review application. (File No.
Resolution............
LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H)
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
A. City Clerk's notification letter (11/6/2009)
Study Sessions......
B. Appeal filed by:
Information.........
1) Alpert International (9/24/2009) with added
submission (11/2/2009)
2) Brad Nicholson (9/24/2009) with added
submissions (11/2/2009 & 11/4/2009)
C. Requests (2) for Reconsideration (9/24/2009) and
responses(10/19/2009)
D. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (9/10/2009)
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Two appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use environmental & site
plan review application were filed on September 24, 2009: 1) Alpert International, represented by
McCullough Hill, P.S.; and 2) Brad Nicholson, Sound End Gives Back, represented by Keith Scully,
Gendler & Mann, LLP. each accompanied by the required $75 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use application appeal.
cc: Jennifer Henning
Larry Warren
- l
DenisLaw �+
Mayor city o.irl r,
(Ir. �t i
C:� C: Ll
City Clerk-BonnieI.Walton
November 6, 2009
APPEAL FILED BY:
1) . Alpert International, represented by John McCullough & Jessica Clawson, .
(McCullough Hill, P:5.; and
2) Brad Nicholson, South End. Gives. Back, represented by Kelth Scully, Gendler &
Mann; LLP..: _
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 9/10/20Q9 regarding the Hawk's Landing
Mixed -Use Environmental & Site Plan Review application;4350-Lake Washington Blvd N.
(File No.-LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, .Chapter S, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on'the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Environmental & Site Plan Review. '
application has been filed with the City Clerk. ;
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-5-110F, the City Clerk'shall notify all ;
parties of record of the receipt' of the appeal. Other parties. of record may submit letters
limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the
notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00
pm, Monday; November 16, 2009..
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on -Thursday,
December 3, 2009, in. the.Council Chambers, 7thFloor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, INA, .98057.. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented. for
consideration by thefull Council at a subsequent Council meeting. -
Attached are copies of both appeals and a copy ofthe Renton Municipal -Cade regarding.
appeals -of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note thiat the City.Council
will be considering the merits of the appeal .based upon the written record previous]
y• .
established. Unless a showing can be made.that additional evidence could not.reasonably have
been available at the prior hearingheld, by -the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or
testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
'For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502-.
Sincerely, ;
Bonnie I..Walton
City Clerk .
Attachments
cc: Council Liaison
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)-43D-6510 Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
CITY OF RENTON
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
SSP 2 4 X009
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMIIENDATION RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME '-L/ �- 1 FILE NO. LV
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 20.
1, IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:
Narne:.Fr-d NiCAVAiLl 60AG45
Address: 2.30 t o���� �' Bac 05Z�G8)
o Q
Phone Number: (4a�-52445- 0625
Email: br G ,?o77K;)hd f Y77
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: -Le '-% sCYll
Address: _ Gni 1 ! "i4h -
y �* m. .1 d 6- e FloI
Phone Number. 06 6,7( 8gf
Email: ke r rrnann. (an -
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Findine of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error: see A
Correction:
Conclusions:
No. Error: Z5er,Ci
Correction:
Other:
No. Error:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION UESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: j t -L e d
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
r
Appellant/Representative Signature ype/Printed Name D
NOTE: Please refer to Tide N, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 9-8-110F, for specific, -appeal procedures.
STATEMENT OF ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
SEPA Appeal
Findings
15, p. 16. Error of fact in finding that stormwater will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants.
Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present.
Conclusions
�M 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors of law in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse-
the
eversethe City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environmental harm
will be "exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would not percolate
into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants.
Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Determination of Significance,
or additional mitigation.
Master Site Plan
Findings
1 27, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with
pollutants.
Decision
Error of law in not requiring a stormwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of
the Master Site Plan and Site Plan.
¶ 10, P. 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside
ditch to convey stormwater, rather than requiring other stormwater control measures.
Remedy
Reverse the SEPA determination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a
Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with
directions to require a stonnwater plan and habitat management plan utilizing BAS to treat
stormwater on site.
NOV-04-2009 04:24PM FROM- 206-621-0512
("XENDLER & MANN, LLP
ATToRNrE'rs-AT-Iaw
Michael W. Gendler-
Dsvid S. Ms►nn 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, Su]T!? 1015
Kei[h P. Scully S�+TrLE WA 98101
Brendan W. Douckus
`Also 4mncW in drei m
November 4, 2009
'SIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Clerk
City of Renron
1055 South Grady Way, 7°i Floor
Renton, WA 98057
T -80B P.0011009 F-762
RE: Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Hotel application,
No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H
Dear Members of Council:
11,;!77� OF NLrNp 041,
Nit c 4. % 0 0
(206) 621-6665
Fax (206) 621_05i2
Yekh6gendler=nn.00m
WWW .BCnd]CrM%nn.0 nM
This case involved voluminous briefing. We ask that you review all of the briefing provided to
date, but also provide this letter to summarize and guide you through it as you consider
whether to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal.
This site has unique challenges.
Uncontrovened evidence shows that the horel proposed here is upslope from the Port Quendall
Superfund site. Pon Quendall is contaminated with extremely toxic substances, and the
Deparanent of Ecology and EPA have information that these toxicsubstances move via
groundwater flow to Lake Washington. For more informurion, see Appellant Nicholson
Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the attached Declaration
of Joel Massman.
Groundwater flow must be controlled, or infiltration will make the toxins Mowing from
Port QuendaU to Lake Washington worse. An EIS should be ordered.
Uncontroverted evidence in the record shoves that groundwater flow transmits toxins from the
contaminated soil at Porn Quendall into Lake Washington. And water that infiltrates the
ground from the site flows downslope to Port Quendall. Although the Applicant argues that it
will channel stormwater to May Creels through its as -yet incomplete stormwaier r3nanagetnent
plan, and not infiltrate the ground with it, evidence uncovered after the hearing indicates That
the drainage ditch relied upon by the Applicant actually will infiltrate the ground, leading to
NOV-04-N09 04:24PM FROM -
206 -621-0512 T -EN P.002/003 F-762
fil
Clerk
November 4, 2009
Page 2
increased groundwater and toxin flow to Lake Washington. An Environmental Impact Study
should be performed to evaluate how much water is infiltrating the ground through the ditch,
how much of an impact it has on Lake Washington, and what the best means of dealing with
the impacts may be. SEGB asserts that this problem can be resolved simply by changing the
direction of stormwater flow on the site to move it away from Port Quendall, and through the
installation of a swrmwater detention pond on the May Creek side of the site. An EIS will
answer critical environmental questions about this project and the adjacent superfund site. For
more information, see Appellant Nicholson Motion for Reconsideration and Declaration of
expert Joel Massman, filed with the Dearing Examiner on September 24, 2009.
We need a storm'water mmagement plan before the site is approved to know if
stormwater will be adequately managed.
A stormwater management plan is required in order to complete the conditions of the approval
on this project - but we don't know what will be in it, or what the Applicant will propose as
their final solution to the stormwater problems on site. The public does not have an
opportunity to comment on the stormwater plan when it is eventually completed, and there is
no mechanism for the Bearing Examiner or the Council to review it. The Hearing Examiner
and Council have broad authority to impose conditions on a development proposal. While
most development sites can safely wait to complete their stormwater plan after approvals have
been received, this site is unique. We should know in advance how the Applicant will handle
stormwater, and the public should be allowed to comment. For more information see
Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the
attached Declaration of Joel Massman.
The Examiner reasonably imposed the condition of Best Available Science on stormwater
management at the site.
The Examiner has been granted authority by the Menton Code 'to impose conditions on
developments. In this case, the Examiner, understanding the unique nature of this site and the
challenges to the long-term health of the region, imposed a requirement of Best Available
Science on stormwater raanagemenr on the site. Best Available Science is a commonly -used
standard in Washington law to protect critical areas, and means what it says: that the Applicant
does not need to create any new methods, but must choose the best scientifically -valid method
available to manage stormwater. See RCW 36.70A. 172.
The Applicant asks you to impose a "Best Management Practice" requirement instead of the
Examiner's Best Available Science requirement. But "Best Management Practices" are defined
by the Renton Municipal Code as measures pertaining to wetlands protection or short-term
construction methods, not long-term stormwater solutions. RMC 4-11-020• The Examiner's
discretion should be left undisturbed on this issue. For more information, see Appellant Brad
NOV-04-2009 04:25PM FROM-
.
Clerk
November 4, 2009
Page 3
206-621-D512 T-808 P.003I003 F -T62
Nicholson Response to Renton & Hawks Landing Requests for Reconsideradon., filed on
October 5, 2009 with the Hearing Examiner.
For the reasons summarized here and presented more fully in our beefing to the Examiner, we
urge you to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal.
Very [rely yours,
GrENDLER & MANN, LLP
C
Keith P. Scully
KPS:d.en
cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton
Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicant
Client
NOV-02-2009 11:58AM FROM- 20E-621-0512
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
A't ORNEY-r-wT-Law
N ichnel W. Gendler- 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015
David S. Mann SETTLE WA 95161
Kri[h P. Scully
Brendan W. Donckers
-Also adm+nca in Oreton
November 2, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Cleric
Ciry, of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7`h Floor
Renio.n, WA 98057
7-805 P 001/004 F-759
CITY OF RENTON
NOV 0 2 2009
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
(206) 621-SR6e
Fax 1206) 621.0512
�ci geadlermxnn.com
w ww.gWlernlann.corn
RL: Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Horcl application.
No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H
Dear Clerk:
Attached please fund an amended notice of appeal in this matter. We filed a notice of appeal on
Sepiember 24, 2009, asking for review of The Hearing Examiner's September 10, 2009 report
and decision.
This amended notice asks for review of rhe Hearing Examiner's October 19, 2009 denial of the
motion for reconsideration, as well as the September 10, 2009 report and decision.
Very truly yours,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
Keith P. Scully
Enclosure
cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton
Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicam
Client
NOV-02`--2009 11:56AM FROM -
206 -621-0512 7-E65 P 00 AU 'r-759
CITY OF RENTON
/I Mr- L7� d NOV Q 2 2009
APPEAL TO MENTON CITY COL3NCTL
Off' HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOM11�h'�ATION RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
�� U FILE NO.
vet 0o --a 60
APPLICATION NAME 1S
hezby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
The undersigned interested PAX+`
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated
� CJ �� 2oC.�. r" I d
l ID CATION OF l' Kl y
S &nom 10� �p�j S�
APPELLANT: c'A m
Name. y
Address:
Phone Number:
Email:
REPP,Es ATrc� (� Gul
Name: _�'��
Address:
Cif
Phare Number Z ��
2. OF ERRORS (ArEach additional sheets, if necessary)
Sex forth below arc the specif c errorS or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
I ndin of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Exan iner's Repon)
No. Error.
Cornet tion:
Conclusions'
No. Error:
Cormc don:
C
O.Other-
No.their: k !�
No. Exror:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION RE UESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: SCS f -Gt e d
Modify the decision or =om=ndation as follows:
Remand to rhe Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
Da
e*ppcRarWRepresentative Signal b-7 Type/Printed Name
NOTE: please refer io Tiilc N, Chapw S, of rhe ZonWnicipal Cade, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific. appeal proccdsucs.
NOV-02-2009 11:58AM FROM- Z06-621-0512 T-605 P.ON/004 F-759
AMENDED
'STATEMENT OF ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Motion for Reconsideration
Conclusions
Page 1, denial of motion to admit new evidence and reconsider ruling.
SEPA Appeal
Find�in�s
15, p. 16. Eiror of fact in finding that stormwater will not exacerbate leaching of contanninants.
Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present.
Conclusions
�11 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors of law in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse
the City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environnlentaI harm
will be "exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would not percolate
into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants.
Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Determination of Significance,
or additional mitigation.
Master Site Plan
Fundings
27, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with
pollurants.
Decision
Error of law in not requiring a stormwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of
the Master Site Plan and Site Plan.
110, p: 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside
ditch to convey stormwater, rather than requiring other stormwater control measures.
NOV-02-20D9 11:N AW FROM-
,
Remedv
205-621-0512 7-605 P 0WN4 F-752
Reverse the SEPA determination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a
Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with
directions to require a stormwater plan and habitat management plan utilizing BAS to treat
stormwater on site.
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
p lc} 0�—d�2 6
bt
1 II li
G
APPLICATION NAME V1/ i FILE No. s r
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Nati of Appeal from the decision or recd n59NRW the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated S E P 2 4 Zoog
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: d IrYlGt. d /IAA Name:
Address: Z, l t L� ff h-r� A)O Address:
Phone Number: Phone Number:
Email: Email:
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as
denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error: P �� L{ GC`U �u -(C � iC. z4a-—h
`A �� p t.-�- _�.rm � &0_i'� +.
Correction: LL)/' QA �'�I'L le i
Conclusions
No. Error:
Correction:
Other:
No.. Error:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: U -g4 7`
- Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: p)� � s�
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
App ep s tative Signature Type/Printed Name Da
n
NOTE: Please refer to Title N, Chapter B, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110P, for specific;.appeai procedures,
2065123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p 03:06:52 p.m. 11-02-2009 216
� u�t�r rc�iy s JiV
MCCULLOUGH HILL, Ps NOV (s 2 2.60)
November 2, 2009
Renton City Clerk
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Applicant's amended appeal to City Council
LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
Hawk's Landing Hotel
Dear City Clerk:
We filed an appeal regarding this matter on September 24, 2009, asking for review of the Hearing
Examiner's September 10, 2009 decision. This letter amends out previous appeal to respectfully
request that the City Council review the Hearing Examiner's decision, and the Heating Examiner's
decision regarding the applicant's request for reconsideration.
RMC 4-8-100,F.7 allows the City Council to modify a decision of the Examiner if it determines that
a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record. Here, the Heating Examiner's conclusions and
conditions regarding landscaping and stormwater were a result of a substantial errors in fact and/or
law.
The Headng Examinees conclusions and conditions rMarding landscaping were a result of
a substantial error of law and fact,
The applicant appeals the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10;
Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining
site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage
should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with
some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the
site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional
street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and
species m on the north frontage."
Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a pian that accommodates additional
landscaping, even tetnpotary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or
701 Fifth Avenue - Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • wwwmhseattle.com
208$123389 Lure 1 McCullough Hill. p 03:07:40 p.m. 11-02-2009 316
Page 2of5
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along the
remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then the applicant shall plant such trees at
the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage."
The applicant appeals this conclusion and this condition because:
• The applicant is already significantly improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it.
See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration
and blight that the current site represents." The property to which this condition applies lies
outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the
applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, it is an error
of law to impose this condition --this condition is not within the scope of the application and
may not properly be imposed under this application. When the applicant proposes
development in this portion of the site as part of a site plan and master site plan approval for
the remainder of the larger property, street trees would be required by code. In addition,
.requiring street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard when there is no plan for
redevelopment may interfere with the future redevelopment of this portion of the site—
trees may need to be removed or telocated in order to accommodate the future development
(construction access, sidewalks, driveways, etc.).
The applicant therefore requests the City Council to revise portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition
10 to read as follows:
Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining
site will detract from what appears to be a duality image. 4hetefere,
The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
proposaL This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan
application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. Additiafts4r,'r— -street trees aleag the
Future redevelopment of the southern portion of the site not proposed for
devel pment wit i this application will r quire consistency with QL. of Renton landscaping
zwgiretnmts including_the n Qf street tree
Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary
landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the
background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas.A446eftallyii
2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
Page 3 of 5
03.08:46 P.M. 11-02-2009 4/6
The Hearing Ex er's conclusions and conditions regAtding stormwater were a result of
a sub tanti error f law and fact.
The applicant appeals the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9:
Conclusion 5; `alose waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should
use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch.
There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created
or collected on this sae's paved or treated landscaping areas: '
Condition 9: The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before
conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means
,including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution
entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek
and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated
landscaping areas."
The applicant appeals this conclusion and condition because:
• The City of Renton has not adopted "best available science" as a standard for stormwater
treatment. The Hearing Examiner is therefore without junsdiction to impose such a
standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stormwater, which includes the use of "best
management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standards, including
the use of best management practices in its stormwater system design. The City of Renton
has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance with the manual is
sufficient to properly.treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted
standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake
Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping
areas.
• The factual record, including the Hearing Examinees own findings of fact, does not support
this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site
Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater pian, or its plan to
comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to
May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12 ---no evidence was submitted
into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the
use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that "The proposal will not be
exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into
Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations
regarding discharge from the subject site." (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). In addition, the
Hearing Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the stormwater "will not travel
20681 23389 Line 1 McCullough Hill. p 03:09:50 p.m. 11-02-2009 516
Page 4 of 5
the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants
leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake." (SEPA Appeal, conclusion G). As such,
the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9.
• The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non -
regulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality (i.e., that the "development shall not
Jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this
site's paved or treated landscaping areas" j.. No impacts are shown to warrant such a new
standard, and the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to create or impose such a
standard in the absence of such impacts. The lam presumes that compliance with the City's
applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwater quality, so
this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's
intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from the City's
stormwater regulations, so we are appealing this issue.
• The Hearing Examiner responded to the applicant's request for reconsideration regarding
stortrnwater by essentially arguing that both May Creek and Lake Washington axe critical
areas, so "best available science" should be used as a standard in this permit decision. The
Examiner then cited RCW 36.70A.172, the definition of best available science under the
Growth Management Act, as the standard that should be used in this permit decision. The
Examiner's reasoning regarding this matter is a substantial error of law. RCW 36.70A-172
requites jurisdictions to use best available science in developing comprehensive pian policies
and development regulations to protect critical areas. The permit decision in this case does
neither—instead, the Exatr finer is required to apply the existing policies and development
regulations that already been adopted by the City of Renton to this permit application. The
Examiner does not have the jurisdiction.to create new regulations, and has limited
jurisdiction to "review and implement land use regulations" in the City of Renton. See RMC
3-1-5. 1bus, the Examiner's introduction of a new standard, not adopted by the City
Council and outside of the City's already -adopted policies and regulations, is a substantial
error of law that must be remedied.
The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9
should be revised to read:
Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applies
cg=ly with the.CiAy of Rent 's standards re din s rtnwater the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manual There is no evidence in the record that would suMst Ma
Creek or Lake Washinto w uld be ' eo ardized as a result of the a ]kation. -The
Condition 9: "The applicant shall comply with King County Surface Water Design
Manual in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside
ditch.
20681 23389 Line 1 McGukough Hill. p
Page 5 of 5
03110 59 p.m 11-02-2009 616
We appreciate the opporftunity to provide this appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to
contact us with any questions or requests for additional information.
Sincerely,
y
Jessi M. Clawson
C�y--
cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney
Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson
.....
M T T.M
Mimi
We appreciate the opporftunity to provide this appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to
contact us with any questions or requests for additional information.
Sincerely,
y
Jessi M. Clawson
C�y--
cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney
Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson
�Y
+ ' +
Denis Law, Mayor
N
October 19, 2004
Keith P. Scully
Gendler & Mann, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste
Seattle, WA 98101
1015
Jack McCullough
Jessica M. Clawson
McCullough Hill, PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle; WA 98104
Spencer Alpert
Alpert International, LLP
10218 Richwood Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98177
CITY � : RENTON
South End Gives Back
Brad Nicholson
c/o Keith Scully
1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015
Gendler & Man, LLP
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann Nielsen
Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton
Re: Hawk's Landing Request for Reconsideration
Dear Attorneys, Applicant and Appellant:
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
This office has received two Requests for Reconsideration on the Hawk's Landing Master Site
Pian, Site Plan and Environmental Appeal decisions. The original appellants, South End Gives
Back (SEGB) and Brad Nicholson and the underlying applicant for the Hawk's Landing Hotel
have each sought changes to the original decision.
The original appellants have suggested that this office consider new information about the
manner in which stormwater is managed by the .applicant. In the original appeal, the appellants
maintained that the "rain garden" used to collect stormwater would permit infiltration into the
ground and that groundwater would flow toward the Quendall Superfund site. The appellants
argued ground flow would potentially leach additional contaminants into Lake Washington. The
record reflected and continues to reflect that the rain garden would actually convey stormwater
through a closed system to a ditch running along the west side of the property. The main thrust of
their current request is that stormwater will be conveyed to the ditch and that ditch permits
infiltration into the groundwater. They argue that the plans to use the ditch and that the ditch's
conditions (pond scum) were not known prior to the hearing. The record shows that the original
plans demonstrated the proposed functions of the rain garden and conveyance system. Further,
the ditch had been conveying stormwater from a site that is covered almost entirely with
impermeable surfaces in the same manner as when the site was actively used and has been
conveying stormwater in its current inactive state. There is no reason to consider the evidence as
new and unavailable at the time of the hearing.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515
This paper contains 50% recycled maanal, 30% post consumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THF. CURVE
The underlying applicant for Hawk's Landing had two major objections to the decision. It
suggests that this office went beyond the scope of the original Master Plan's boundaries when
requiring additional landscaping. The first objection had to do with additional landscaping to
screen the proposed development from the unsightly portions of the site generally east of the
parking areas and to plant street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard continuing the planting
pattern for the site south of the main site. The applicant introduced evidence that the City has
funds to address those areas along Lake Washington Boulevard covered by the condition. That
specific evidence was not available at the public hearing. The second objection was to using
"best available science" to manage stormwater so that contaminants from the site do not reach
May Creek and Lake Washington.
This office believes that the Master Plan should not have ignored those areas outside of the
immediate hotel redevelopment parcel. Doing so leaves visually unappealing pavement asa
dominant feature from the hotel and its grounds. In other words the applicant's limiting of the
Master Plan site probably should have been initially rejected by staff. Frankly, when coupled
with an immediate Site Plan review, Master Planning adds very little. There is nothing to
coordinate the hotel's site plan with in this case — it stands alone. But rejecting the Master Plan
would be inappropriate at this stage in the process since in the main it is well-designed.
Therefore, in order to give some weight and meaning to the Master Plan review, the additional
screening to hide or soften the impacts of the unsightly eastern parcel appears reasonable. The
condition for landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard south of the project confines will be
modified to allow the City to install the landscaping.
The condition to require the use of "best available science" appears reasonably related to the
critical areas intended to be protected, namely May Creek and Lake Washington. The subject site
will be developed with large parking areas and landscaping. The parking afeas will collect
contaminants from automobiles including oils, solvents, gasoline and anti -freeze and road grime.
The landscaping will more than likely be treated with fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
Stormwater will capture these various contaminants.. The site's stormwater runoff will feed a
ditch that almost immediately feeds into May Creek which then almost as quickly empties into
Lake Washington. Both May Creek and Lake Washington are shorelines and waters of statewide
significance. They are also critical areas. RCW 36.70A.172 provides the following language:
"Critical areas — Designation and protection — Best available science to
be used.
(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties
and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies
and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical
areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to
conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance
anadromous fisheries."
The standards already exist in state law and should be used to protect both May Creek and Lake
Washington. The standards imposed in this decision are no more uncertain than they are in state
law.
In conclusion, Condition 910 will be modified. The full list of conditions made a part of the
decision are found below.
"DECISION.
The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions:
L A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape
architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other
similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit
Z. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7ADA parking spaces. The
revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit
3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating
compliance with -RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit
4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final
Occupancy.
5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented facade.
The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and
Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building
permit approval.
6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways
through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving
prior to building permit approvak This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Community and Economic Development project manager.
7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current
Planning Project Manager indicating 12 foot sidewalk widths and a 10 foot wide
landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to
construction permit approval.
8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for
public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current
Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of building permit
review.
9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying
it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including
water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce, pollution.
entering the ditch and .then May Creels The development shall not jeopardize May
Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved
or treated landscaping areas.
10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to
screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east of the
parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along
the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then the applicant shall plant
such trees at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage."
This office recognizes that appeals of the underlying decision have already been filed. This
decision may change one or more of those appeals or appeal issues. The parties may appeal this
decision within 14 days of this new decision
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner
Denis Law, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18!
19!
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY OF RENTON
SEP 24 2009
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeal of }
SEGB, a Washington non-profit }
Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an )
individual and citizen of Renton, }
Petitioners, }
Case No. LUA-09-060, EGF, SA -M,
SA -H
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I. AGREED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
The parties have conferred, and agree that any response shall be due by 5 p.m. on
October 1, 2009, and any reply due by 5 p.m. on October 5, 2009.
II. MOTION
South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) move the Examiner to
reconsider his decision denying the Appeal of SEPA Determination, and approving the
Master Site Plan and Site Plan in this matter based on new information regarding water
flow on the subject property. This new information was uncovered as a result of testimony
froze the applicant and city staff at the hearing, and -subsequenfi invest gafi6ri, and was not
reasonably available before the hearing. Because the site's design will concentrate all or
virtually all of the site's surface water into a ditch, and infonnation presented at the hearing
GENQLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite IDIS
Seattle, WA 98101
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 P(C(D PyFax: (206)6621-051828
0
1
2
31
41
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and investigated by Appellant's expert after the hearing indicates that the ditch is an
infiltration feature, the Examiner's decision is based on an error of fact. Moreover, the
Examiner erred in law, with or without the new information, and erred in judgment in
limiting stormwater treatment options to dumping water in to a ditch that fails to convey
water offsite.
ITT. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
- The September 23, 2009 Second Declaration of Joel Massman (Second Massman
Dec.) (attached).
- The files, pleadings, and evidence presented at the hearing in this matter.
IV. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1. The Hearing Examiner erred in finding as a matter of fact that:
Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed
to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site.
The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the
phrase gain garden" may not have its normal meaning,
infiltration will not follow treatment. The stormwater will be
collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage
ditch. It will not be left to percolate in to the underlying
soils.
HE Decision at p. 17, � 6.
2. The Examiner erred in law by finding that:
The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC
erred. The decision below is not clearly erroneous and the
decision below should be affirmed.
HE Decision at p. 17, ¶ 6.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The Examiner erred in concluding as a matter of law that the ERC did not err
in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from
contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, 16.
4. The Examiner erred in judgment by approving the Master Site Plan and Site
Plan with the following condition:
The applicant shall use best available science in treating
stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch.
Decision at p. 25,110,
V. ARGUMENT
A. Standard for Reconsideration
RMC 4-8-100(G) provides for reconsideration:
Any interested person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of Iaw
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 application for review by the Examiner
within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the
Examiner has been rendered.
1. The Decision rests on an error of fact.
At the hearing, Appellant SEGS presented expert testimony regarding potential
groundwater infiltration on the site based upon the Applicant's description of its proposal
in the application materials, which appeared to indicate that a significant portion of the site
would be left as either bare earth or hydroseeded. The Applicant responded at the hearing
by clarifying its plan, stating that it intended to leave the impervious surfaces throughout
the site either intact or replace them with new impervious surfaces. The Applicant stated
that it intended to grade the development area and route all water flow to a "rain garden,"
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: f2061621-8868
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fax! (206) 621-0512
11
2�
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with water then flowing to a drainage ditch. New information presented at the hearing
included a drawing of the "rain garden," which had an impermeable liner, meaning that no
infiltration would occur onsite. This "rain garden" is simply a conveyance measure, not a
treatment measure. Second Massman Dec. at ¶T 1-3.
At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that the flow of water would be through the
ditch and to May Creek. Although not reflected in the summary of testimony, City staff
testified that the ditch had standing water and "orange scum" in it, and that City staff had
difficulty or were unable to maintain it. A site visit by hydrogeologist Joel Massman
revealed that there is water standing in the ditch, even though this is dry weather. Second
Massman Dec. at T 6. The design of the ditch includes a higher inlet elevation than the
culvert, meaning that water flowing into the ditch will stand in a pond, rather than flow to
May Creek. Id. Dr. Massman notes that:
A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is
currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into
the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek,
Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this
ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to
assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is
significant -
Second Massman Dec. at ¶ 7 (emphasis added). As the Examiner correctly found,
the City must conduct an EIS if there are probable significant adverse environmental
impacts. Decision at p. 17, � 4. The Examiner correctly noted that uncontroverted
testimony established that groundwater flows from the development site to Quendall
Terminals, and conveys pollutants to Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, ¶ 14; Second
Massman Dec. at T 11. The new information from the Applicant that all stormwater will
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101!
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 1206) 621-8868
Fax: 12W 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
flow to the ditch, and from the City and Joel Massman that the ditch ponds, and thence
infiltrates the ground, means that the same arguments raised regarding increased permeable
surface apply to the use of a ditch that serves as an infiltration feature. Second Massman
Dec. The appeal should be granted and an EIS must be ordered.
2. Denying the SEPA appeal rested on an error of law.
In addition to the new information regarding groundwater infiltration, the
Examiner's decision should be reversed because it rests on an error of law. The Examiner
concluded that the ERC did not err in its review of the DNS because the project "will not
exacerbate pollutants leaching from contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17,
�( 6. But SEPA does not require that a project exacerbate environmental issues. The
threshold determination for an EIS is whether the development proposal is "likely to have
probable significant adverse environmental impacts." RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); RCW
43,21C.031; WAC 197-11-360. That the proposal causes new impacts is not dispositive of
whether an EIS is required; nor is it necessary that the proposal increase environmental
impacts. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979).
In ASARCO, a smelter requested a variance that would allow it to continue operating. The
court held that even though there was no change in the status quo of pollutants emitted, the
action still required an EIS. As the ASARCO court noted, SEPA "aims not only to prevent
further environmental degradation but to reverse, where possible, ecological damage
already done." Id.
In this case, uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that groundwater flow carries
toxins from Port Quendall into Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, TT 10-11. Infiltration
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
dal
GENTLER & MANN. LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 E
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone; (206)621-8868
Fax: (2061 621-0512
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27!
28
from the site will maintain or increase groundwater flow. Decision at p. 14, � 15. Because
the ditch does not convey all water offsite, but instead allows infiltration, the ongoing harm
of toxin flow via groundwater provided from the site will be continued. Like ASARCO, an
EIS is required to study the impacts and evaluate alternatives.
An EIS would provide substantial information to the decisionmaker on how best to
handle the project's impacts on the adjacent Superfund site. Unlike a threshold
determination, an EIS requires consideration of alternatives. There are numerous options
available for how stormwater is handled on the project. Some options, like the use of the
infiltrating ditch, increase or at best maintain the flow of groundwater to Quendall
Terminals. Another option, the BAS option, would be to channel the water the other way,
towards May Creek, and thence to an infiltration feature on the other side of the property.
Second Massman Dec. at ¶J 11-12. An EIS would quantify the impacts of the project as
submitted, a no -action alternative, and other means of handling stormwater, and allow
Renton to make an informed decision on whether to allow this project as proposed or
require stomnwater management more tailored to the unique circumstances of the site.
3. The Examiner erred in ordering that water be dumped in the ditch.
The Examiner ordered that "[t]he applicant shall use best available science in
treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch." Decision at p. 25, ¶ 9. But
the new information regarding the infiltration of water from the ditch means that this
condition will not prevent pollutants from entering Lake Washington. As Dr. Massman
opines, the Best Available Science for handling stormwater on the site is not to use the
ditch:
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101E
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 12061621-8868
Fax: (206) 629-0512
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an
infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the
7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of
contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site.
Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve
stream flow in May Creek.
A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site
would represent the best available science in terms of
reducing cotLtaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal
site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing
roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May
Creek,
Second Massman Dec, at % 11-12. While undoubtedly well-intentioned, the
Examiner's decision thus improperly limits the stormwater treatment options to a system
that makes no sense, given the unique topography of the site and the presence of Quendall
Terminals downslope from a "ditch" that actually serves as an infiltration pond.
Dated this 24th day of September, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
By:
Keith P. Scully
WSBA No. 28677
Attorneys for Appellants
1South End Gives Back(Den)1Motion for Reconsideration FINAL 9 24 09
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101'.
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 12061 621-8868
Fax: 1206) 621-0512
I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows:
1. 1 am a civil engineer and have been retained by Brad Nicholson and South End
Gives Back to assist in addressing stormwater and other site development issues related to the
proposed land use at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard.
2. 1 provided a previous declaration related to this project dated July 17, 2009,
3. My educational and work experiences are described in Items 1 through 3 in my
First Declaration, dated July 17, 2009.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Dated this 22nd day of September 2009,
Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E.
I have reviewed the Report and Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton dated September 10, 2009. This document includes minutes from the August 25, 2009
hearing held in the Council Chambers of the Renton City Hall. These minutes include the
following information that was not previously provided to me:
1. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition.
There is no pian to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area
related to the hotel development.
2. The rain gardens that have been proposed as a component of the stormwater plan for the
site will be lined and will not be used to infiltrate storm water.
The applicant states that rain gardens are required, "per the King County Manual," to
treat storm water from pollution generating impervious surfaces.
Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of the September
10, 2009 Report and Decision and on my review of documents identified in my first declaration
dated July 176, 2009 include the following:
1. Rain gardens are listed in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as flow
control best management practices (BMP's). They are not listed as a water quality
treatment BMP or option.
2. The efficacy of rain gardens as a water quality treatment technology has not been
evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual.
3. The efficacy of rain gardens that are lined with impermeable liners has not been
evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual.
4. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with
warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent
of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces.
5. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface
to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation and runoff from impervious
surfaces, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces at
the site may be in the range of 20 to 25 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an
average runoff of 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day.
6. Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington
Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. Based on
information included in the April 28, 2009 report prepared by Sound Development Group
LLC entitled "Technical Information Report for Hawk's Landing Crown Plaza Hotel,"
The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no
precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation
than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the
ditch_
7. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside
ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek.
Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been
developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this
ditch is significant.
8. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to
Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site,
hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels.
Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals
site located between the project site and Lake Washington.
9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout
the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants
are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in
this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and
groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along
the shoreline of Lake Washington.
10. Groundwater recharge from the existing roadside ditch likely contributes to the rate of
contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This
conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall
Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site.
11. Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility
constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact
in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater
recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek.
12. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best
available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal
site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of
improving base flow to May Creek.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeal of ) Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M,
SA -H
SEGB, a Washington non-profit )
Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an }
individual and citizen of Renton, ) DECLARATION OF KEITH P.
} SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF
Petitioners, ) FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
I, KEITH P. SCULLY, declare as follows -
I. I am an attorney with the law firm of Gendler &. Mann, LLP, attorneys for
petitioners/appellants SEGB and Brad Nicholson in the above -captioned action. I make
this declaration in order to satisfy the requirements of GR 17(a)(2),
2. The document to be filed is the Second Declaration of Joel Massman.
3. I have examined the document, determined that it consists of five (5) pages,
including this declaration and excluding exhibits, and that it is complete and legible.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING
FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - 1
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle. WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 24th day of September, 2009, at Seattle, Washington.
KEITH P. SCULLY, WSBA No. 28677
%South End Gives Back(DeODec Scully FAX 9 24 09
DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING
FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - 2
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: i206) 621-8868
Fax: [2061 621-0512
MCCULLOUGH HILL, Ps
GETYOF RENTON
September 24, 2009 SEP 2 4 2009
C1iY CLER� SEORMCE
The Honorable Fred J. Kaufman
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Applicant's request far reconsideration
LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
Hawk's Landing Hotel
Dear Mr. Examiner.
We are writing on behalf of the applicant for Hawk's Landing Hotel to respectfully, request
reconsideration of two conditions placed on the Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review approvals
granted by you on September 10, 2009. RMC 4-8-100 allows an interested person to snake a written
application fox reconsideration of the Examiner's decision when the person feels that the decision is
based on an 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.
The Heron= Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of
an error of law, fam and judgment
The applicant requests reconsideration of the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10:
Conclusion: "The Master Plan process does include `master plan' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the retraining
site Will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage
should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
proposaL This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes With
some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the
site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional
street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and
species as on the north frontage."
Co dk on 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes -with some larger trees to screen or
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhscattle.com
Page 2of5
remainins, Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted
along the north frontage."
The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and this condition because:
0 The applicant is already significantly improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it.
See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration
and blight that the current site represents." The property to which this condition applies lies
outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the
applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, this condition
is not within the scope of the application and may not properly be imposed under this
application. When the applicant proposes development in this portion of the site as part of
a site plan and master site plan approval for the remnindet of the larger property, street trees
would be required by code. In addition, requiring street trees along Lake Washington
Boulevard when there is no plan for redevelopment may interfere with the future
redevelopment of this portion of the site—trees may need to be removed or relocated in
order to accommodate the future development (construction access, sidewalks, driveways,
etc.).
The City of Renton has received an appropriation from the State of Washington for
improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard associated with the redevelopment of the
entire area (including the Hawk's Landing site, the Barbee Mills site, the Quendall Tetminals
site, and the Seahawks site). These facts Were not reasonably available at the time of hearing
as the appropriation was still in process at the time. It is our understanding that the
appropriation includes funds for street trees and other street improvements on the southern
portion of the Hawk's Landing site. As the City has already taken responsibility for this
improvement, the improvement cannot be part of this approval.
The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 14
should be revised to read:
Conclusio %: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spate nature of the remaining
site will detract from what appears to be a quality image- ,
The Master Pian cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan
application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. ,
��Future redevel Dment of the southern portion of the site not�roposed for
debeloyment with this apalication mill require consistency with City of Renton landscaping
r: cQuirernents, including the planting_of street trees."
Page 3 of 5
Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shallwork on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary
landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the
background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas.
"
The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding stormwater Were a result of
an error of lawfact, and Xu nt.
The applicant requests reconsideration and clarification of the following portions of Conclusion 5
and Condition 9:
-Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should
use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch.
There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created
or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas."
Condition 9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before
conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means
including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution
entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek
and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated
landscaping areas."
The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and condition because:
• The City of Renton has not adopted "best available science" as a standard for stormwater
treatment. The Heating Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a
standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stormwater, Which includes the use of "best
management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standards, including
the use of best management practices in its stormwater system design. The City of Renton
has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance with the manual is
sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted
standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake
Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping
azeas."
i The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own findings of fact, does not support
this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site
Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to
comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harsh to
May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12—no evidence was submitted
into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any storinwater impacts warranting the
Page 4of5
use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that "The proposal will not be
exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into
Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations
regarding discharge from the subject site." (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). In addition, the
Heating Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the stormwater "Will not travel
the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants
leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake." (SEPA Appeal, conclusion 6)_ As such,
the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9.
The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non -
regulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality (Le., that the "development shall not
jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this
site's paved or treated landscaping areas").. No impacts are shown to warrant such a new
standard, and. the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to create or impose such a
standard in the absence of such impacts. The law presumes that compliance with the City's
applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwater quality, so
this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's
intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from the City's
stormwater regulations, so we are seeping reconsideration and clarification of this issue.
The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9
should be revised to read:
Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled With respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The alicant must
com lv with the Ci of Renton's standards re din stormwater the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manual)- There is no evidence in the record that would suggest May
Creek or Lake Washin on would be jeopardized as a result of the gpi2lication. The
Condition 9: "The applicant shall comg1.5: -with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside
ditch.
4 2,
feft
Schedule for res once.
We understand that the other party involved with this matter, Brad Nicholson, may respond to our
request for clarification. We have spoken with Mr. Nicholson's attorney, Keith Scully, and have
settled upon the following response schedule:
Page 5 of 5
Response due: September 30
Reply due: October 5
We hope that this schedule is acceptable to the Hearing Examiner. We appreciate the opportunity
to provide this request for reconsideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions
or requests for additional information.
Sincerely,
G — �I 41it�
k
C. McCullough
cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney
Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson
September 10, 2009
OFFICE OF THE IHARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANTS: Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back (SEGB)
Represented by: Keith Scully
OWNER: Port QuendalI Company
Attn: Steve Van Til
505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Ave S_, Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
APPLICANT/CONTACT: Spencer Alpert
Alpert International, LLP
10218 Richwood Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98177
Represented by: Jack McCullough
701 St Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
RESPONDENT: City of Renton
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney
File No.: LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North
SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND
LAND USE ACTION: Appeal of SEPA Determination and request for Master Site
Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high,
122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing
and examining available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes area summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Parties present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton
Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, Development Services
Keith Scully, Attorney representing Appellant Brad Nicholson and SEGB
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use ai SPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 2
Jack McCullough and Jessie Clawson, Attorneys representing Alpert International, LLP
The following exhibits were entered into the record for the SEPA Appeal:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-
M, SA -H containing the original application, various
reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA
Appeal and Staff analysis.
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Ask Fred what he wrote down!
Exhibit No. 2: Notice of Appeal with Attachments A-
L
Exhibit No. 3: Notice of Supplemental Brief and
Attachments
Exhibit No. 4: Larger Overview of Vicinity Map
Exhibit No. 5: Close-up of Vicinity Ma
Exhibit D: Existing Condition of Site
Exhibit E: Deconstruction Plan
Exhibit F: Post Deconstruction Plan
Exhibit G: Site Utility Plan
Exhibit H: Grading.Plan
Exhibit I: Dan Mitzel Biography
Exhibit r: Sound Design Group LLC
Exhibit K. TIR
The Examiner stated that today the Hawks Landing Land Use, LUA-09-060 hearing for a Master Site Plan and
Site Plan Review, and a SEPA Appeal fled by SEGB and Brad Nicholson, who are challenging the SEPA
Determination by the City would be heard. The SEPA appeal will be first followed by the Land Use.
The Examiner asked for preliminary remarks:
Ann Nielsen stated that in the submissions by the appellant in the initial notice of appeal, along with their
supplemental brief, appellants raised an issue in regards to the Master Site Plan, the City and the applicant did
respond to that issue. The Master Site Plan and the Site Plan hearing is separate and apart from the SEPA
appeal, those issues raised that pertain to the Master Site Plan and Site Plan should be stricken and barred from
the SEPA appeal hearing.
Keith Scully stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Nielsen, his document should have been titled differently in
order to separate the two hearings.
It was agreed by all parties to strike the Master Site Plan and Site Plan issues from the SEPA appeal hearing.
Vanessa Dolbee stated that the site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North and is a 7.8 acre parcel,
however the project site is only 3.07 acres in the northern part of Renton in the COR zone just north of May
Creek. It is east of Lake Washington Boulevard, and south and west of 1-405. The project proposes to build a
hotel on the site that would include retail space, a fitness center, a spa and a restaurant. The building would be
60 -feet high and 5 stories. It would be a total of 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms and a 124 space surface
parking lot in addition to an underground parking garage. The hotel would be located in the northwestern corner
of the project.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an- ---'PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 3
There are two wetlands associated with May Creek, both are to the north of May Creek. One wetland is 63 feet
from the property line where the development will take place. The other one is approximately 117 feet south of
the property line of the developed site. The Shoreline Master Program would have different buffers depending
on the use, the Shoreline jurisdiction is invoked if development is within 200 feet of May Creek, all the
proposed development is outside of that 200 foot area.
Keith Scully, Gendler and Mann asked to submit all the attachments to their Notice of Appeal Hearing Brief and
a Notice of Supplemental Evidence. Included within the attachments are Declarations from Dr. Massmann and
Mr. Nicholson. They do not need to repeat everything if the Examiner would be willing to accept them in lieu
of live testimony. They are present, if there should be cross examination, they would be willing to answer any
questions that there may be.
Dr. Joel Massmann, 6520 E Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Dr.
Massmann stated that his declaration represented his comments on this pending application. In paragraph 3 on
page 2 where it states that 85% of the impervious surface was taken out of the plans leaving the assumption that
there would be a potential for a reduction of 4 acres in impervious surface on this site. His analysis in his
declaration was based on that potential. The impervious surface over the larger site, beyond the 3.7 acres is
actually less than 85%.
The assumption was that any land that was currently impervious and it became pervious the recharge onto that
portion would become ground water. Rain Gardens would also infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of
the county.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Dr. Massmann stated that 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed
and would then infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. If it would be less than 4 acres you
could simply divide that ratio by the actual amount of impervious surface. A Rain Garden is a place to collect
surface water runoff and store it to potentially infiltrate the water. There may be less infiltration in a Rain
Garden due to the plants that would transpire, they are roughly similar to simple surface water runoff, and there
would be less recharge in the Rain Gardens because of evapotranspiration.
Keith Scully stated that Mr. Nicholson was also present and his Declaration was part of the record. If there were
no questions for Mr. Nicholson, he would not be called to testify. There were no questions for Mr. Nicholson.
It is their burden to show that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that clearly shows
that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been ordered, rather than what did happen when the City
decided that there were no probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
The point of an EIS is to study the exact impacts. One of those is not available, they cannot tell exactly what
will happen should this project be developed. They must show that it is more likely than not that it is probable
that something bad is going to happen to the environment if this plan goes forward as designed.
On SEPA, they are resting on one point and that is the stortnwater. It rains all the time in Washington, there is a
ton of water that any site trust deal with. This particular site is 85% impermeable and currently there are some
old warehouses and a bunch of pavement. When you have a site like this, and you take away pavement and
permeable surface that rain water can simply go through into ground water rather than landing on and flowing
off. Usually that is an unmitigated good thing and usually fights over developments like this in that there is not
enough ground water recharge, there would be too much water flowing off the site and flowing into water
bodies like May Creek or into the drainage ditch that carries the water off the site. This site is unique and SEPA
requires looking at not just how most sites would affect the environment but how this particular site impacts the
environment.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an :PA Appeal
File No.. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 4
The goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be, but to create a document that lets the
decision maker really understand the environmental impacts of the proposal. The question is, is there going to
be a probable significant adverse environmental impact? This is not the case of sample sites described in the
Surface Water Design Manual, where more water flowing into the ground is automatically a good thing.
Because of where this site is located, there are residential and commercial properties to the south, there are
freeways close by, a residential development to the west and close to the site is the QuendalI terminal which is
loaded with chemicals and toxic soils that move via groundwater to the lake. There are hot spots of
environmental contaminants in Lake Washington that have been flushed from the land.
With this project, pavement will be torn out, buildings will be deconstructed, Rain Gardens will be added, which
will absorb some of the water but not enough, there will be landscaping added and impervious surfaces will be
dug up and replaced with a different impervious surface and permeable surfaces. The rain that currently flows
on this site is channeled to a drainage ditch and on to May Creek, more of that is going to be going into the
ground than previously. With this new construction, all water will now go directly to the Quendall site and add
toxins to Lake Washington. An EIS would tell how much of an impact this new construction would have on
existing water flow and Lake Washington.
In order to begin construction on this site, they will need to dig a de -watering trench to drain the site while they
use construction equipment. This ground is already saturated, there would be more ground water flow during
the construction. They may need to add catch basins in order to flow water to May Creek without more toxins
from the surface.
The Appellant is asking for a finding of probably significant adverse environmental impact and asks that this be
remanded back for a Determination of Significance and an Environmental Impact Statement.
Ms. Nielsen waived an opening statement, the City will present their information via a presentation by the
project manager, Vanessa Dolbee. She will then join with the applicant in any specific presentation with respect
to the stormwater issues.
Vanessa DoIbee stated that the City did receive an application from Spencer Alpert of Alpert International, LLP
for a SEPA Environmental Review, Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review for the Hawk's Landing Hotel, the
applicant did provide all documents required by Renton Code. The SEPA review returned a Determination of
Significance -- Mitigated with 10 mitigation measures.
The site is vacant, but used to be the home of Pan Abode Cedar Homes. All of the buildings on the site will be
deconstructed with the exception of the one building on the south. That building does have a corner within the
200 -foot shoreline. The hotel and parking will be located in the northwest corner of the site. Mitigation
measures 3 and 4 require the applicant to comply with the 2005 King County Storm Water Design Manual in
addition to providing erosion and sediment control per Department of Ecology during construction.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Ms. Dolbee stated that the white space shown. on Exhibit G is in general
impervious surface. It is old concrete and other buildings as well as other items left on the site.
Discussion was had regarding the materials left on the site, whether the hotel would face those leftover
materials. The Examiner inquired as to what was going to happen to the rest of the white space.
Mr_ Scully continued stating that in fact, the City does not know what is going to happen with all the stuff
remaining on the site.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an_ _=,PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 5
Ms_ Dolbee stated that based on the submittal documents, she believed that the areas not marked "TBR" would
not be removed. There is no condition that requires them to leave that area impervious. There also has been no
document issued at this point by the City regulating that space outside the development area. A permit would be
required to do any type of work on the site. There is nothing in the plans that states what will happen to the soil
under the buildings that are to be removed.
Mr. McCullough stated that they would defer any opening statement and called Mr. Mitzel to testify.
Dan Mitzel, 1111 Cleveland Avenue, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that he was developing this site in
conjunction with Spencer Alpert of Alpert International. He is the developer for the hotel and has been active in
the real estate business since 1977 and active in the hotel business since 1984. About a year ago he got together
with Mr. Alpert and starting discussing possibilities of developing this site for a hotel that would work in
conjunction with the Seattle Seahawks. An agreement was entered into with the Seahawks to build a hotel that
would be considered the official hotel for the Seattle Seahawks, it was very important that they have a hotel that
was within close proximity to the VMAC Center and training center.
Uuon questioning by Mr. McCuIIough, Mr. Mitzel stated that the plan was to remove the buildings, leave the
concrete slabs under the buildings and leave the asphalt that surrounds the buildings so that the impervious areas
are mimicking the existing conditions in the area outside of where the hotel will occur. There will not be 4 acres
of new pervious surface in the area of this new construction. The portion of the site that is impervious will
remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of
impervious surface in the area unrelated to the hotel development.
All buildings are sitting on concrete slabs. The hotel that will be built on this site will have some rooms looking
to the east and southeast. Those views would be essentially of asphalt and concrete, there might be a minor
amount of general cleanup that happens, the site is not a junk yard, rather a series of buildings that will be taken
down, the slabs will be left, the asphalt will be left and that will be the condition they must deal with in terms of
the view from some of the rooms, it is not perfect or ideal, but neither is looking at the freeway. They feel it is a
condition they are willing to live with and they are willing to take that risk.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Mitzel stated that the entire site is under their control under a real estate
purchase and sale agreement. It is one tax parcel. They operate hotels in many different conditions. The
premium rooms will be looking at Lake Washington. At this point they have not begun to obtain their
demolition permits. There have been no specific conditions about how they leave the area that does not include
the project area. Nothing will be removed outside the project area.
Pat Severin. Sound Development Group, LLC, 15214 Avon -Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273.
Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Severin identified a statement of qualifications for Sound
Development Group. He has been an engineer in the Skagit Valley for 10-12 years and been practicing
engineering since 1989 and licensed since 1995.
Mr. Severin was contacted by Mr. Mitzel to provide engineering and surveying services for the project. They
addressed storm drainage, utility designs, site layout and grading plans for the site. They worked with the
project architect to develop a site plan that was aesthetically pleasing and functions from a utility standpoint.
Exhibits E and G are true depictions of the existing conditions and post development conditions of the site.
Rain Gardens have a two -fold function, it is a point of collection for stormwater, it provides water quality
treatment and in some cases infiltration to actually dispose of stormwater runoff. This site is only using Rain
Gardens for the treatment of the water, they do not intend to infiltrate any water in the Rain Garden area. The
TIR for this project contained a diagram of the Rain Garden Treatment System. After the water was collected
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use a SPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page b
in the Rain Garden it flows into the drainage system and out to May Creek where it currently discharges. There
would be a collection pipe at the bottom of the Rain Garden to receive all the surface water that percolates
through the Rain Garden down to the drain rock below. The bottom of the Rain Garden would be lined. Per the
King County Manual, they are required to treat pollution generating impervious surfaces, which is primarily
asphalt and some concrete surfaces and that is what they are collecting. Roof waters are typically considered
not a pollution generating impervious surface, that water will be collected and diverted to the ditch in a separate
system.
Per the King County Manual, impervious surfaces are actually considered asphalt, concrete and typically
graveled surfaces, even if it were all to be removed, which the applicant does not intend to do, it would stili be
considered impervious. Pre -development to post -development, all the water would be discharged to the ditch
much as it is today. The only difference is that they are treating the stormwater runoff and the Rain Garden will
provide some flow attenuation from stormwater. They are providing a better water quality than what is there
today.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Severin stated that there was no water evaluation on the undeveloped
portion of the site other than knowing from the grades in the standpoint that the water would continue to flow
like it has done previously into the ditch. He only addressed what they currently were developing. The site
slopes more from the east to the west. The area outside of the hotel generally flows to the west and Lake
Washington Blvd. and it will continue to flow that way.
In the Water Quality Manual there are several menus, there is one that determines if it is a high or low use site,
which is generated by average daily use traffic. This site was determined to be low volume traffic therefore,
they were required to do basic water duality treatment. They chose Rain Gardens because it is a very attractive
technology that is available and is promoted by a lot of the jurisdictions. There are many ways to provide basic
treatment, the Rain Garden treatment actually qualifies for enhanced treatment and it does a better job of
cleaning the water.
Mr. McCullough stated that they have addressed the legal arguments in the briefing submitted earlier and it
remains their view that the burden that the appellants face in the SEPA appeal is a burden under the applicable
case law of actually producing evidence. That has not been seen today, the only evidence that has been
submitted is the Declaration of Dr. Massmann and he testified here that he clearly made two fundamental
assumptions to reach the conclusion that he did: 1. Four acres of the larger site would be converted from
impervious to pervious surface and 2. He assumed the Rain Garden feature would be a stormwater element that
would provide for the infiltration of stormwater.
It has been clarified in their response/presentation that both those assumptions are absolutely inaccurate. There
will be no conversion of impervious to pervious as a result of the deconstruction and the Rain Garden is a water
quality treatment feature. There is no likelihood of any increased infiltration of any material amount in this
ground. There is no evidence in support of this SEPA appeal. Any change would be subject to review and there
are no plans to change the impervious surfaces. The appellant has failed in their burden to show error and
therefore asks the Examiner to uphold the SEPA Determination.
Ann Nielsen stated that the applicant more than complied with all the necessary application materials and
documents in his request for a SEPA review to the ERC. The ERC had all the necessary information before
them that they needed to make an adequate SEPA assessment, in doing so they came to a DSN-M with specific
mitigation measures. The Appellant has done nothing to show that there was any significant adverse
environmental impact that was not contemplated or could not be mitigated by the conditions that were put upon
by the ERC committee. The City would request that the Examiner find that the appellant has failed in their
burden to show clear error and that the SEPA determination should be upheld.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an_ _SPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September lb, 2009
Page 7
Mr. Scull stated that the specific evidence they have pointed out is what happens if you do remove all the
structures and impervious surfaces. They learned today on the record that they are not going to be doing that.
That is not a condition of mitigation and not a part of their application.
Contrary to what Mr. McCullough said the fact that it is in the record in front of the Examiner means nothing for
the future. The fact that they said they were not going to do it, does not bind them from proceeding with
separate projects. It does not prevent them from getting a separate permit, it also does not prevent them from
doing things that do not require a permit. There is a glaring omission on what is going to happen on the
majority of the site. At a minimum they ask that the Examiner require a mitigation condition that what is
currently impervious outside the development area should remain impervious. Today there is not enough
information as to what is going to happen to the rest of the site and an EIS should be required.
The Examiner stated that if by imposing an additional condition the parties would agree to retract their appeal
that is something that the Examiner is entitled to do. By taking the appellant's concerns under advisement and
the applicant's willingness at this point to say they are not going to do any of that action without permitting of
the City.
A 10 minute Break was taken
LAND USE HEARING began at 10:49 am
The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Hawk's Landing Land Use Hearing:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-064, ECF, SA-
M, SA -H containing the original application, various
reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA
Appeal and Staff analysis.
Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit No. 3:
Existing Conditions
Exhibit No. 4:
Hawk's Landing Master Site Pian
Exhibit No. S:
Hawk's Landing Site Plan
Exhibit No. 6:
Site Dimension Plan
Exhibit No. 7:
Tree Inventog Plan
Exhibit No. 8:
Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 9:
Site Utility Plan
Exhibit No. 10:
Gradin Plan
Exhibit No. 11:
East and South Exterior Elevations
Exhibit No. 12:
West and North Exterior Elevations
Exhibit No. 13:
S & E Elevations hic
Exhibit No. 14:
N & W Elevations a hic)
Exhibit No. 15:
Hotel Gya e Floor PIan
Exhibit No. 16:
First Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 17:
Second Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 18:
Third and Fourth Floor Plans
Exhibit No. 19:
Fifth Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 20:
Roof Pian
Exhibit No. 21:
Building Sections
Exhibit No. 22:
Demolition Plan
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an_ _JPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 8
The hearing continued on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 10:49 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of the Renton City Hall. This portion is the hearing of the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Master Site Plan
Review and Site Plan Review. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner did ask
for additional time in preparing his decision due to the length of the material presented.
Vanessa Dolbee stated that she is the project manager for the Hawk's Landing Hotel for the City of Renton.
The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review.
The City of Renton did receive some Capital Improvement Funds during the 2009 Legislative Session; Staff is
currently working to identify how those will be expended, although it has to be approved by City Council, which
has not approved the expenditures at this time. Some of the items on the table that do have a direct relationship
to this project would be a water line extension on Lake Washington Blvd and the extension of a trail along May
Creek and some storm drainage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd that may include some impervious
sidewalk improvements. Review and permitting of this would happen at a separate time.
The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes, to the
northwest is VMAC, the home of The Seahawks, to the west are Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminal and to the
south is May Creels. The parcel is 7.88 acres in size and the project area is 3.07 acres. There is a small
triangular parcel of land at the far north end of the site which is currently owned by the City of Renton. A
vacation request has been made by the applicant to acquire that parcel under file #VAC -09-001. It has been
approved with some conditions associated with the approval.
The hotel is proposed to be 60 -feet tall with 5 stories, 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms, with retail space,
fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. Access to the site would be from Lake
Washington Blvd via two locations; first is north located in the existing vacation area, which with approval
would become a part of this parcel and would be limited to right-in/right-out only, the second access is to the
center of the larger parcel and would provide access from both directions. There would be parking in an
underground garage as well as surface parking, with 231 parking stalls total, 107 in the garage and 124 surface
stalls.
This project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, its elements, goals, objectives and policies. Lot
coverage for the COR zone is 65%, the building footprint has a 22% coverage. Setbacks for the COR zone are
determined through the site plan review, the applicant has proposed a 20 -foot front setback from Lake
Washington Blvd, a 60 -foot setback from the north side of the property line, a 480 -foot south setback and a 129 -
foot setback from the rear property line along 1-405.
The COR zone requires portions of the building which exceed 50 -feet in height would include upper story
setbacks at a minimum of 10 -feet from the preceding story, the building should include vertical and horizontal
modulation on roof lines and facades at a minimum of two feet and an interval minimum of 40 feet. The fifth
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and 3LPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 9
story of this hotel would be subject to these requirements. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of
the special development standard.
The landscaping is determined through site plan review, perimeter landscaping has been proposed in widths
from 6 -feet to 25 -feet, screening around the refuse and recycling areas, ornamental landscaping at the hotel
entrance with a Koi pond and a pedestrian bridge crossing. Street trees would be planted along Lake
Washington Blvd. This landscape plan further complies with the City's parking regulations. There are no
specific standards for landscaping refuse and recycling for hotel developments.
This proposal would improve the character of the site, new access would be provided and street frontage
improvements provided. Landscaping would be provided that would screen the surface parking area from
surrounding properties. The scale of the structure is larger than the Barbee Mill but smaller than the VMAC.
This hotel does provide a much needed transition from the existing residential and I-405. The hotel would be
more compatible with the surrounding residential than the former industrial site and the impacts to the
surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed
buildings are appropriate for the site and would be compatible with surrounding properties. If and when the
remainder of the site is developed, it would need to be compatible with the hotel. The proposal is expected to
increase property values in the vicinity of the site.
In addition to access and parking on the site, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks are proposed along
the street frontage which would provide safe pedestrian access throughout the site. The applicant would be
required to provide a 12 -foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lake Washington Blvd with a 10 -foot landscaping
strip for safety. The single building would not have an impact on the site's light and air circulation. There
would be minimal noise impacts from the increased traffic, although the noise would be virtually unnoticeable
because of the proximity of I-405.
The Fire and Police Departments for the City of Renton have indicated that their existing facilities are adequate
to accommodate the subject proposal. Impact fees have been required as a mitigation measure of the SEPA.
Redevelopment of this site would help prevent deterioration and blight of the neighborhood. It would actually
increase the quality of the subject site and the project is expected to contribute to the well-being of the City in
general and the neighborhood in particular.
This site is located in Design District C, which is an overlay design district and it is in compliance with most of
the requirements of the Design District, except for the following:
The west elevation of the building has some blank walls and Staff has requested that the west side be re-
designed at that portion to feature a pedestrian oriented fagade.
Design District requires that all sides and top of refuse and recycling areas be enclosed. Having a top
enclosure would not function well with garbage collection, they have asked for a modification to not put
a top on the enclosure.
The proposed surface parking lot is not intended to be built into a structured parking at future phases of
potential development. This site is constrained by access off of one road and the internal circulation of
the site is vital for future potential development and this parking lot would serve as that internal
vehicular circulation.
The applicant should submit new site plans indicating the entire pedestrian pathway throughout the
parking lot as differentiating materials or texture from the adjacent paving.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 10
The applicants have proposed to provide canopies along the fagade fronting Lake Washington Blvd that
exceed the minimum width standards, although they do not meet the minimum length standards they
have proposed them along 38.5% of the facade, which pertains to approximately 60 linear feet. The
hotel design also provides modulation as it fronts Lake Washington Blvd, some portions of the hotel are
setback and not immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. As such, the design requirement of the
overhangs would not be achieving their goal in some of those areas, therefore the 60 -feet of linear
canopy coverage.
There are some additional requirements if the project is located in the COR zone, which this proposed
project meets.
Hearing was adjourned for lunch at 11:30 am...
Back on record at 1:00 pm
Pat Severin, 15214 Avon -Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that they had taken a look at the site with
the existing conditions and constraints from elevations in the roadways and they came up with a grading plan
that actually would grade the entire site towards the surface areas of the Rain Gardens from the entrance road
and from all the parking areas towards the Rain Gardens. All this water would be collected in the Rain Gardens,
treated, and conveyed to the discharge point down through the bottom of the ditch. Any of the water around the
hotel would be picked up with downspouts and/or yard area drains directed to the same discharge location.
He did not believe that any flow control would be required on this site per an exemption in the King County
Manual. Some flow attenuation would happen with the Rant Garden. They do not have an approved
construction document at this time, it is only a planning document.
The next step would be to receive site plan approval and then proceed with the construction documents where
they would finalize their design depending on comments from the City Staff. The Rain Gardens have not been
approved as a design feature and in fact when the approval comes through it might not include Rain Gardens but
some other feature. There are a number of features that would provide the same level of treatment to choose
from. The final plan would need to comply with the City's Code.
This 3.07 acre site is not within the 100 year flood plain, a portion of the south boundary just crosses the 100
year flood plain.
Geralvn Reinart, PE, 159 Denny Way 4111, Seattle, WA 98109 stated she is a self employed traffic engineering
consultant specializing in the preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses_ She was responsible for the preparation of
the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. The analysis included a review of the existing conditions adjacent
to the project including the operations of three intersections along NE 44�h, the northbound and southbound
ramps to I-405, along with the Seahawks Way intersection. This included a review of the number of accidents
along Lake Washington Blvd and NE W Street. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts completed for the
project were also used in the analysis, along with a review of the site accesses at two locations along Lake
Washington Blvd.
Looking at the site accesses, the existing Pan Abode driveway should be limited to right turns in and out due to
its close location to the ramp interchange. The main access to the site is located towards the southerly end of the
hotel portion of the property. In looking at the future volumes at that intersection left turns into the site were
recommended. Build out of the hotel could generate over 1400 daily trips, 97 during the AM peak hour and 102
during the PM peak hour per the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. The future trip
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and �rPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 11
volume projections at the intersections mentioned earlier included pipeline trips from the adjacent Barbee Mill
development that is ongoing currently plus a 2% annual growth rate in the traffic volumes, which is consistent
with prior studies that have been completed in the area. The project trips were added into the future values to
analyze the impacts from the project itself. The trip assignment for the hotel was based on prior work that was
done in the vicinity and specifically the Port Quendall analysis of the I-4051NE 44`h Street interchange project
access report prepared by WSDOT. There were some adjustments made to that report since this road was going
to be serving Seahawks visitors, some of that traffic was redistributed up to the Seahawks facility. The critical
movement at the intersection of Seahawks Way and Lake Washington Blvd near the northerly access to the site
is currently moving at Level Service D during the peak hours. Future increases would drop that level of service
to E with or without the hotel. The other critical intersection operations would be the north and southbound
ramps to I-405, some of the movements are operating at Level Service F during the AM peak hour and the delay
on those movements would continue to increase over the next few years with or witbout the hotel project. All of
these intersections are within the WSDOT limited access area, they are also subject to review as part of this
project.
Measures to raise the level of service at these intersections was reviewed by both agencies and included the
installation of traffic signals for the ramps and then some restriping of lanes and construction involved with lane
additions. WSDOT did concur with these measures and requesting that the applicant participate in a
proportionate share of the cost of these improvements, which are being proposed by WSDOT.
Pat Bunting, 3643 Leg Road, Bow, WA 98232 stated that her firm, Graham and Bunting, is an environmental
and land use service. She was one of three on the project team that was assigned to go to the site and look for
critical areas that could possibly be anywhere from the site down to May Creek. They found two small wetlands
off site by May Creek, they are Category 2 wetlands. There was May Creek, a Class 1 stream, there is also a
ditch alongside Lake Washington Blvd which is a Class 5 stream. The hotel would be more than 200 feet from
May Creek. The small wetlands were offsite and so are not buffered, they are well out of the range of the
project site. Checking the habitat of the stream requires walking up and down the stream banks and looking for
habitat including large debris, downed logs, vegetation, ripples and pools places where fish can spawn and feed,
they looked at the classed ditch as well for that reason. May Creek is a habitat for fish.
The wetlands were so small, their habitat value was found to be over winter when there would be water, and
there might be some winter habitat. But there was not much there, the wetlands were not even wet at this time
of year. Each one is less than 500 square feet.
This project, as proposed, meets all requirements for the City of Renton.
Mel Maertz, 16921 Larch Way, Lynnwood, WA 98037 gave a brief description of his qualifications. His role in
this project was to help programming and master planning of the project. He worked on the design of the hotel_
The site plan for the hotel is oriented to Lake Washington, taking advantage of the views, they planned this hotel
so it would not affect the future development of the remainder of the site. They tried to accommodate the
pedestrians and the traffic, it was important to look at the Seahawks facility and the connectivity between the
two facilities. Parking to the back and easy access to the underground parking were very important.
The hotel was designed with a Northwest Craftsman look and incorporated materials like those used in the
Seahawks facility as well as the Barbee Mill community across the street. They are trying to create a sustainable
building that would be a leader in the community.
Vanessa Dolbee responded to an earlier question by the Examiner regarding refuse and recycling. Renton
Municipal Code requires for multi -family developments one and a half square feet per dwelling unit and three
square feet for recycling and three square feet per dwelling unit for refuse. The office analysis was based on
two square feet per 1000 gross building square feet for recycling and four square feet for refuse for 1000 gross
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an '.PA Appeal
File No.. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 12
building square feet, which results in for recycling the 244 square feet and refuse at 488 for the office
requirement. Looking at the multi-family requirements the recycling (hotel rooms as dwelling units) 259.5
square feet for recycling and 519 square feet for refuse, which is actually an increase from the office
calculations.
Keith Scully, Attorney representing Brad Nicholson 1424 4`h Ave, Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that they
had submitted some written comments as part of the Notice of Appeal. They learned a fair amount today and so
would modify some of those comments. There are some greater concerns but also some reduced concerns with
the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
A drainage plan is required under Renton Municipal Code as part of a Master Site Plan or Site Plan application.
There is an exception to that requirement which allows the City to make a determination that if the proposal will
not substantially alter the drainage pattern and/or it will not adversely affect the drainage pattern, then the City
can waive that requirement. There has been no formal request for that and no formal waiver made and based on
what they learned today that waiver is not applicable. This proposal does substantially alter the drainage
pattern. They are going to grade the entirety of the site and route it into the Rain Garden. Currently water flows
into the creek, this will adversely impact water quality because of flowing over what is undeveloped impervious
surface, and it will be flowing over an active parking lot.
The Drainage plan is a document that is reviewed by the Examiner and determines if what is proposed is
compliant with Renton's code and with Renton's incorporation with the King County Surface Water Design
Manual. What you have is a conceptual outline of what they might ask the City to approve as part of their
building permit. This does not comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is nothing
for the Examiner to rule on, they don't know if they are going to be doing the Rain Garden plan or something
else. They are planning to deal with flow control and toxin removal through a Rain Garden treatment system,
although they disagree with them, however they do admit that they need to do something to control the toxins
that will come off the parking lot. A Rain Garden would be okay for this proposal, but what they have called a
Rain Garden, includes an impermeable surface layer. A Rain Garden is something that has plants in it and lets
water infiltrate the ground. There is an infiltration component to every single Rain Garden design, this
impervious liner makes this not a Rain Garden. The water that is flowing off the parking lot now flows through
a little bit of gravel into a pipe and straight to May Creek. What they are actually proposing is a thing called a
perforated pipe collection system, which is a box with some gravel in it and a pipe at the bottom. There are no
flow control credits for it, and that is because it does not work as a pollution control plan.
He disagreed with the comments made by the wetlands specialist that you don't buffer something off site_ If the
property line stops and there are no critters on your property, you are done with the evaluation. The habitat and
the impacts on the habitat should be studied, not just the impacts on your property. There are fish in the creek,
birdlife in the vegetation, and all the stuff that comes with a small conservancy designated wetland. The hotel is
far from the wetlands, but the blank space in an unknown at this point. What do they intend to do with it? It
appears that it is currently being used as overflow parking for the Seahawk's games, is it going to be lit with the
lights shining on what may be song bird nesting habitat, what is the flow going to be like when cars are parking
on it, are they going to be putting heavy equipment on it for some later project. No one knows what is going to
happen.
They have less of a concern on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. If any part of this one project
goes within 200 feet of May Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed. They have been told
today that no part of this development will be within 200 feet of May Creek. If the south building is left
untouched and no work done in that area, then they do not need a SSDP. They would ask for a special condition
to be added that no work incur in that area within 200 feet of May Creek.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and ,3r.PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 13
Kayren Kittrick, Dev Engineering Supervisor, Community and Economic Development showed a map of the
project site, she marked the site with an "X". Directly across to the northwest is the entrance of Seahawk Way
and the VMAC building, it further showed the location of Barbee Mill development. This development has
triggered improvements to the intersections including stop lights.
The start of a LUA file is only preliminary discussions, included in those preliminary discussions is a
preliminary drainage plan, it is required. The final construction plans takes in things brought in during the
hearing, things added as conditions, best management practices plus changes they find on the site during
construction. The Rain Garden design is very interesting, it seems closer to a bioswale design and that is one of
the acceptable items. It will have to be studied to see if it works, if it does not, the applicant must find another
method that is acceptable within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The hotel and hotel parking
could change anything that might affect the final calculations of what they have to treat and what has to be
released. The standards are not relaxed, a preliminary design is presented, and that is what we know at this
point based on specific calculations. Conditions can be made, ERC could have made a condition, plus once it
gets looked into and they find it does not meet the King County Surface Water Design conditions or standards or
doesn't do what they think it is going to do, the City runs their own calculations and checks on everything.
Even under an EIS it is still a preliminary design.subject to change.
Any soils that are removed from this site would be checked for contamination and treated as deemed necessary.
Vanessa Dolbee stated that Mr_ Scully had been referring to a habitat management plan, the City code does not
specify a habitat management plan, and they have a habitat assessment and a habitat data. report. The habitat
data report was waived (which is the same thing as the habitat assessment). It was waived because there was a
Fish and Wildlife habitat section within the wetland and stream study that provided sufficient information to the
City to determine that the habitat assessment report could be waived.
Keith Scully stated that he believed that Renton's policy is to allow a preliminary drainage plan but that is
wrong and now seems like the time to fix it. RMC 4-60-030C says that persons applying for specific permits or
approvals would submit for approval a drainage plan for their application or request. Further on, drainage plan
is defined in the same section 4-60-03OF stating that the drainage plan will be prepared in conformance with the
department's construction plan drafting standards and contents and the design criteria contained in chapters 3, 4,
and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nothing in the code section about the start of a
conversation or a preliminary plan, which means the final thing and they need to make a determination that it
does or doesn't that the Hearing Examiner can then repeal.
Jack McCullough stated that the only lingering issues have to do with the drainage plan.. The testimony from
Mr. Severin and the City stated that a drainage plan was submitted. The confusion here is that the comments
from Mr. Scully on behalf of his client suggest that it is the Examiner's position in this proceeding to pass
judgment on approved drainage plan. That is not the case. Sub-section G of the Code section referenced by Mr.
Scully, Review and Approval of Plan, it indicates that the decision on the plan is reserved to the approval of the
Development Services Division. In the second sentence of sub-section G1, it says that if no action is taken by
the City after submission of the Final Drainage Plans within 45 days, then such plan is deemed approved. In
Sub-section G3 it indicates under additional information that the permit application shall be supplemented by
any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his
duly authorized representative. This is the process that Ms. Kittrick outlined, there is an additional submittal,
it's not just a conversation, a report has been issued showing the process and treatment that is anticipated to take
place. At this point it is incumbent on the Examiner in review of this information only to determine that the
plan, in its current state, is feasible on the property. What has been heard from Ms. Kittrick and Mr. Severin is
that there will be comments and they have not passed judgment on the acceptability under the manual or the
City's Code. Mr. Severin testified that there are alternates that can easily be employed that qualify under the
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an, PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 14
manual. Once the process of comment is completed then you arrive at what G 1 refers to as the Final Drainage
Plan. Then the Administrator has 45 days to take final action.
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 2.07 p.m.
FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ON SEPA APPEAL:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
The appellants, South End Gives Back (aka SEGB) and Brad Nicholson, filed an appeal of a
Determination of Non -Significance —Mitigated (DNS -M) that the City issued for the proposed Hawk's
Landing Hotel. The appellants filed the appeal in a timely manner.
2. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, hereinafter applicant, applied for a Master Site Plan and a Site Plan
review for a hotel complex that would include a 173 room hotel, retail space, a fitness center, spa and
restaurant. The project would be developed on an approximately 3.07 acre portion of a larger 7.8 acre
site located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. The project also includes a proposed "rain garden'
which is designed to handle stormwater collected on the subject site.
3. The subject site is located between Lake Washington Boulevard on the west and I-405 on the east and is
almost directly south of the on-ramp for I-405 at NE 44th Street.
4. Lake Washington itself is located west of the subject site separated from the subject site by Lake
Washington Boulevard, the Barbee Mill subdivision and the Quendall Terminals site. The new
Seahawk's Training Center (Virginia Mason Athletic Center) is located a bit further north. May Creek
and associated wetlands are located south of the subject site.
5. The subject site was the location of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes manufacturing site. The site is
developed with old, now vacant warehouses and almost the entire site is covered with pavement. There
are approximately 75,214 square feet of warehouses and impervious surface covers approximately 85%
of the subject site.
6. The applicant will be removing pavement and warehouses, "deconstructing" in terms used by the
parties, from the north portion of the subject site, the approximately 3.07 acres that will be developed
with the hotel and associated surface parking and landscaping.
7. May Creek and Lake Washington are both shorelines of the State and are both subject to the criteria of
the Shoreline Master Program. The applicant has designed their demolition and redevelopment proposal
to avoid any work within the 200 foot threshold of the Shoreline Master Program
8. The ERC imposed ten (10) conditions. Four of those conditions related to geotechnical issues,
wetland/stream issues, in compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and
erosion control under Department of Ecology regulations. Those four conditions are:
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports:
"Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991;
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and u 'A Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 15
"Geotechnical Investigation -- Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated
June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May
Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985.
2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the
"Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009.
3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manual.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
(TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control
Requirements outlined in Volume Il of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of
Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. "
9. The appellant calculates that if there is 85% impervious surface that subject site will generate storm
water in the amounts of 10 to 20 acre feet of water or between 900 and 1800 gallons per day.Based on
the applicant's submissions the appellant calculates that there will be approximately 38,866 square feet
of landscaping. They also calculated the change in impervious surfaces. From those calculations the
appellants deduce that "a reduction in impervious surface would dramatically increase the rate of
groundwater recharge." (Appeal page 3)
10. The appellants then explain that based on topography, measured groundwater at the site, and
hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels that groundwater
will flow to the wrest, down and toward Lake Washington through the Quendall Terminals site. Since
these groundwaters are inferred to flow toward the Quendall Terminals property the appellants
anticipate that these groundwaters will pick up or increase the rate of contaminant discharge from
Quendall to Lake Washington. The appellants allege contaminants entering the lake will have a
deleterious impact on fish and people who use the lake.
11. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. That means it has been found to be significantly contaminated
and is listed by the Federal Government due to the levels and nature of the contaminants found at the
site. Past practices on the site released or produced dangerous hydrocarbons and toxic materials such as
arsenic as part of the creosote and tar manufacturing and pole treatments produced on the site.
12. The appellants noted that "rain gardens are'excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape
that provide storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The soil in the depression is
enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth."' (Notice of Appeal, Page 2). Relying on the
definitions found in the 2005 King County Manual, the manual referenced by the ERC to govern
stormwater management on the subject site.
13. In summary the gist of the appellants' arguments are that the applicant will be using the rain garden and
or other aspects of the proposal to infiltrate stormwater into the soils under the subject site. This will
recharge or supplement the groundwater which will flow toward the west and the Quendall Terminals
Superfund site. This will increase the contaminants leaching to Lake Washington from beneath the
Quendall site. The toxics in turn will affect the health and safety of the lake for both humans and fish
and animal populations.
14. The appellants base much of the appeal on the declaration of Joel Massmann in particular, the following
paragraphs:
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use ani _ PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 16
"7. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site.
Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments,
groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of
impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to
1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed.
8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed
project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This
estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part
of the proposed development.
11 _ Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of
contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site of Lake Washington. This conclusion
is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and
on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site." (Declaration of Joel
Massmann)
15. The applicant's submissions and testimony indicate that the feature called a "rain garden" will be
installed. The applicant's "rain garden" is designed as a water collection system which captures and
treats stormwater collected on the subject site and then conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has
been conveying stormwater from the site in the past. Therefore, even if the above numbers are correct,
the fact that the applicant proposes capturing most of the stormwater and conveying it to the existing
ditch and then into May Creek, makes the numbers and probably the conclusions of the Massmann
declaration inconsequential. If much of the stormwater is captured then it will not be entering or
recharging the groundwater and will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants into the lake from the
Quendall site.
16. There was some confusion or disagreement over whether the applicant's proposed rain garden
installation would function to cleanse or treat pollutants. It may not meet the normal definitions for a
"rain garden." If a review shows the proposed design is not suitable for its intended purpose than it
should not be used. The applicant is still bound by the 2005 King County manual for detention,
retention and treatment.
The appellants also attempted to appeal the Master Site Plan as part of their original submission. There was no
Master Site Plan decision issued when the appeal was filed. As a matter of fact, one of the land use decisions
for which the SEPA appeal was filed was for a review of the Master Site Plan by the Hearing Examiner.
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. The appellant has failed to demonstrate 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 2677 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous'
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and . ,PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 17
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test.
For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed.
3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is
less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the
environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS.
A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of
significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly
flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the
preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement.
4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more
than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278).
Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as
follows:
Significant. (1) "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.
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. The appellant did not provide a basis that could be used to reverse the City's determination. The
proposal will undoubtedly create impacts to the community but they are not substantial, at least, not on
the issues the appellants have raised. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the ERC made a
mistake. The applicant will be capturing stormwater water and conveying it in a manner similar to how
it was previously conveyed from the subject site. Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be
conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the
rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not
follow treatment. The stormwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage
ditch. It will not be left to percolate into the underlying soils. It will not travel the downhill gradient
toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils
into the lake. The post development groundwater quantities suggested by the appellants' evidence is
unsupported by the facts. The ERC did not err in its review.
7. The reviewing body has to determine if this proposal would have more than a moderate impact on the
quality of the environment. This office is not left with any doubt about the reasonableness of the
underlying decision. The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an YA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 18
below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed.
8. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be
affirmed.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS*
1. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, filed a request for a Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review.
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.
I 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 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is the vacated Pan
Abode factory site located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. I-405 is east of the site and
its NE 44th Street access ramps are located north of the subject site.
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such
development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned COR (Commercial, Office, Residential). In addition to being located
in the COR Zone, the subject site is governed by the Urban Design District "C" overlay regulations.
The COR requirements also require all development to undergo both Master Plan and Site Plan review.
The Master Plan review is an overview of a project to determine the overall project concept and how the
project meets the City's goals.
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December
1959.
9. The applicant proposes developing approximately 3.07 acres of an approximately 7.8 acre site. The
subject site is generally trapazoidal in shape. The south property line is approximately 732 feet (east to
west). The western, Lake Washington Blvd frontage is approximately 800 feet long. The eastern and
northeast property lines together are approximately 900 feet long. At the north end of what appears to
be part of the parcel is City of Renton property abutting the I-405 ramps. The applicant has requested a
vacation of this property.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use a EPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 19
10. The south portion of the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. The
applicant proposes an estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill
for construction.
11. May Creek, a Class 1 shoreline of the state, and at least two associated wetlands are located south of the
subject site. Any development within 200 feet of May Creek would be subject to the Shorelines
Substantial Development Permit and Shorelines Management regulations. The applicant's proposed
development will be outside of the 200 foot threshold and staff determined that it is not subject to those
regulations. A drainage ditch along the City right-of-way runs along the west side of the property. The
ditch is a non-regulated stream with associated non-regulated wetlands. (Wetland and Stream study for
the project).
12. The tree inventory showed 32 existing trees. The applicant proposes replacing those with 73 new trees
and other landscaping (see below).
13. The applicant will be demolishing the existing warehouse structures that cover the 3.07 acres proposed
for the hotel. The applicant will be retaining the other building on the remaining 4.73 acres_ There will
be no development or demolition within 200 feet of May Creek.
14. The applicant proposes developing a 5 -story hotel on the north portion or 3.07 acres of the site. The 173
room hotel building will be 60 feet tall and contain 122,000 square feet of interior space. It will have a
footprint of approximately 29,336 square feet. The complex will also contain retail space, fitness
center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. There will be underground parking.
15. The hotel's footprint will be L-shaped. The long leg of the "L", oriented north to south, will face Lake
Washington Boulevard. The short leg will be oriented east to west along the north end of the parcel. A
plaza with water feature will be located in the crook of the "L". Parking wilI generally be located east of
the building.
16. The applicant will be using a variety of materials for the exterior of the building. It will contain stone
veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding and metal roofs. There will be "northwest" style overhangs and
trusses. The appearance is intended to complement the development of the Barbee Mill plat west of
Lake Washington Boulevard. The COR Zone and the Urban Design District require both vertical and
horizontal modulation a minimum of 2 feet at an interval of 40 feet to add interest and quality to the
project. Additionally, there is to be a building setback of 10 feet for buildings over 50 feet in height.
The plans show that the building does meet the horizontal and vertical modulations and that the top
story observes an approximately 12 -foot setback for most of that story and varies from zero feet to 39.5
feet. Staff has suggested that does meet the intent and with the variety of eaves, trusses, bump -outs,
baIconies and differentiated materials it more than meets the spirit of the "guidelines."
17. The entry from the east side or parking areas will be set off by the water feature that contains a Koi pond
and pedestrian bridge. The Lake Washington entry will have a canopy-
18.
anopy_
IS. Landscaping in the COR zone is developed as part of the Site Plan review process but is also governed
by landscape requirements for surface parking lots. Along with the 73 new trees replacing the 32 that
would be removed, the applicant proposes approximately 39,000 square feet of landscaping. New
Iandscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the subject site, around the perimeter of the hotel
building and in and around the parking Iot. The landscaping will be confined to the 3.07 acres that the
applicant proposes developing with the hotel. Street trees will be planted along. Lake Washington
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 20
Boulevard and will be spaced 30 feet on center. A large variety of other landscape plants will be used
throughout the site. The applicant did not submit the necessary irrigation plan. Parking lots with 100 or
more stalls require 35 square feet of landscaping per stall, a minimum of 5 feet in width, 1 tree per 6
stalls, 5 shrubs per100 square feet and Iandscaping within 50 feet of parking stalls. Staff calculated that
the submitted plans meet the minimum requirements.
19. Staff has calculated the required parking based on use as a minimum of 223 and a maximum of 23 5
stalls and the applicant proposes 231 stalls, meeting code. There would be 107 stalls in the parking
garage, and 124 surface stalls including 6 ADA stalls and stalls for five Neighborhood Electric
Vehicles. Staff noted that for parking lots of this size 7 ADA stalls are required. Staff noted that both
parking areas meet code for dimensions and compact stalls.
20. Lot coverage permitted in the COR zone for a building with surface parking is 65 percent. The
proposed 29,336 square foot building covers approximately 22 percent of the 3.08 acres proposed for
the hotel complex. The setback from the freeway is a required 10 feet whereas other setbacks are
determined during site plan review. The applicant proposes a 20 foot setback from Lake Washington
Boulevard, its apparent front yard, 60 feet from the north property line, 129 feet from its eastern,
freeway property line and 418 feet from the south property line (including the acreage outside of the
3.07 acres). The zone permits buildings of 125 feet or 10 stories whereas 60 feet and five stories are
proposed.
21. The applicant will provide access to the subject site via two locations. One driveway will be located
along the north boundary of the subject site. The second, main driveway will be a more formal, two-
lane gateway driveway at Lake Washington Boulevard located south of the hotel building.
22. Garbage and recycling areas are determined by use but hotels are not specifically identified. Staff
evaluated the use as an office use that would require approximately 732 square feet of space and
considered the fact that the applicant will be using a trash compactor in determining that the proposed
379.52 feet was adequate. The applicant has requested that this refuge complex not contain the roof
required by the minimum standards since it requires dumpsters be moved out for collection since the
dumpsters cannot be raised to truck level with a roof enclosure.
23. The development will increase traffic approximately 1,400 trips. There will be approximately 97 a.m.
trips and 102 p.m. trips. The City's estimate of 1,413 trips matches the numbers predicted by the
applicant.
24. As part of the development of the subject site the applicant proposes raising the grade of the site to
match Lake Washington Boulevard. This will expose the hotel to the general public and allow the
public to enter the site from surrounding sidewalks and trails.
25. Staff in its matrix chart has identified compliance, partial compliance or failure to meet the District C
Design Guidelines minimum standards as well as suggested guidelines. That matrix is adopted by this
office and incorporated into this report by reference. Particular reference is made to lighting for safety
and not spilling off the site, facade treatment along the Lake Washington frontage lacking character
elements to break up blank or rather unadorned lengths of facade, pedestrian paths in the parking areas
and sufficient to provide both a trail link and pedestrian link around the site and connecting to the May
Creek and King County paths and trails.
26. No Planned Action Ordinance was adopted for this site.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and br,1'A Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 21
27. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to what the applicant terms a rain garden for treatment and
then conveyed to an offsite ditch that runs along the west side of the site. The ditch conveys water to
May Creek and then Lake Washington. As discussed in the SEPA Appeal decision issued with this
project, the proposal will not be using infiltration and the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues
with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington. The applicant will
be governed by City, State and Federal regulations regarding discharges from the subject site.
28. Sewer and water are provided to the subject site by the City.
CONCLUSIONS:
The project is subject to both Master Plan and Site Plan review as well as review under the District C
Design Guidelines and the COR special considerations. The fact that only one building is involved in
this proposal makes consideration of Master Planning for the subject site mirror the Site Plan review
standards. While the building will contain a mix of uses including a restaurant was well as the Hauch
larger hotel, these various uses are included in the one facade scheme. It would make more sense to
invoke the Master Plan review when the remainder of the 7.8 acre site is developed to make sure it is
well coordinated with this current hotel complex.
2. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air,
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
The Comprehensive Plan's designation for this area is for the development of larger scale commercial,
office and residential uses befitting what are some of the larger parcels in the City. Many COR parcels
were used for industrial production that dedicated larger swaths of lands for those purposes. As some of
those industrial uses have moved away, the land is available for larger projects. The proposed hotel,
especially in conjunction with the Seahawk's training complex is such a large scale project. The hotel is
a kind of mixed use - temporary residences for patrons while a commercial operation. The hotel will
also integrate a restaurant and retail uses into the mix. The proposal is compatible with the goal of
transforming old industrial sites into high quality development.
4. The proposal in the main is compatible with the Zoning Code. It meets the height and setback
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an ;PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 22
requirements of the code. It provides the complement of parking required. It meets the design details
for modulation and articulation found in the Code and in the District C Design Guidelines. The top
floor does not completely abide by the suggested setbacks from lower floors but on average exceeds
those setbacks and greatly exceeds those setbacks on many of the top floor's facades. Staff found it was
an appropriate design. Similarly, staff found that the proposal meets the code requirements for garbage
and recycling and in comparison to the overall size and bulk of the facility and it appears staff is correct_
This office does have some problems with the fact that the roof required appears to conflict with actual
pickup services by garbage/recycle handlers. Staff and the City need to review these issues.
Compliance with actual Building and Fire Code provisions will be verified when appropriate detailed
permits are submitted.
5. The building will be taller than the former warehouse uses on the subject site but it certainly is more
graciously designed. It will be taller than the residential uses west of Lake Washington Boulevard but
shorter than the nearby training center. It will provide a buffer from I-405 and a transition from the
freeway interchange to the residential uses Iocated along Lake Washington Boulevard. The State has
asked for mitigation and that is incorporated into the ERC's conditions. Turn lanes should mitigate
impacts of traffic along Lake Washington Boulevard. The nature of the trips will also be different from
the former industrial use of the site. An appeal was filed of the ERC's decision. That appeal was
directed at minimizing the potential impacts of converting a large area of impermeable surface to a new
hotel facility. There was a misunderstanding of how stormwater would be handled. The appeal was
denied but issues raised in that appeal can be further clarified in the Site Plan review. The site will still
be conveying its storm waters to May Creek and Lake Washington. Those waters should be handled
with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature is
used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the
roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants
created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas.
The proposal will replace old warehouses with a modern hotel with substantial exterior appeal. The
building will use a variety of materials to break up the apparent bulk of the building and will add
appreciably to the Iandscaping on the site as well as along Lake Washington Boulevard. The longest
facade treatment along Lake Washington Boulevard has a number of horizontal and vertical breaks
providing an interesting appearance. Coupled with the variety of materials, wood, hardie board, veneer
treatments as well as roof trusses all add to the visual variety the building presents to the public. Staff
has noted that additional opening in what are considered blank walls will be needed along this facade to
comply with code and provide the visual interest of the building. There will be perimeter landscaping
added around the hotel and around the general site. The applicant will be providing street trees along
Lake Washington Boulevard for the extent of the development proposal. The applicant should provide
landscaping along the remainder of Lake Washington Boulevard and along the eastern and southern
perimeter of the parking areas. The Master Plan process does include "master planning" for the entire
subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site
will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be
incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that
suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes
that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even
temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the
background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant
should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the
same ratio and species as on the north frontage.
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and 3r -PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECP, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 23
7. The redevelopment of this now underutilized site will help increase the tax base of the City and the
removal of old warehouses should conserve if not increase property values. Obviously, there will be
more general hubbub and traffic than a vacant warehousing site produces. These were anticipated when
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were enacted for this site and this area. Redevelopment of this site
is a vital element of the City's objectives for this area.
The internal circulation and the pedestrian paths seem generally appropriate. Distinctive marking to
provide visual separation of pedestrian routes from vehicular crossings may need better definition. As
indicated by staff, this site connects trails in the vicinity and the applicant should make appropriate
provisions for trail users as well as general pedestrian traffic. Staffs recommendations on path width
are appropriate.
9. While the building and bulk are larger than what is on the site, clearly the proposed 60 foot height is
substantially Iess than permitted in the zone. In addition, the generous setbacks provided as well as the
width of 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard will aid in letting air and light penetrate the subject site
as well as surrounding properties.
10. As noted, there will be more comings and goings from this site than the community is used to but
development has occurred to its west and that has already introduced more urban tumult. There will be
the usual but temporary construction noise and 1-405 already adds to the ambient noise levels in this
area.
11. There are available urban services including sewer and water. The applicant will be paying a Fire
Mitigation fee.
12. The redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site
represents. The project looks very well-designed and should be an asset to the community and City as a
whole.
13. The project is also required to comply with the COR Zone special review criteria as well as the District
C Design Guidelines. As discussed above, this office has adopted staffs analysis and recommendations
regarding compliance with those numerous criteria. Some of the thematic requirements overlap the
broad review of the Site Plan criteria. Specific requirements were covered by the Staff review and are
incorporated into this report. They are attached to the end of this report.
14_ The special criteria for the COR zone include:
a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable.
b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that
meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office -
Residential Comprehensive Plan designation.
C. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and
active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems.
d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable.
e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas;
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 24
f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural
features, or other items.
g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property
and supports the land use envisioned.
h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of
transportation.
15. No Planned action ordinance is involved in this review. The property does not lie along Lake
Washington. The height of the building should provide views of the lake and view corridors might exist
between the homes on the west side of the boulevard. The project will accommodate the trail as well as
retail shops and a restaurant open to the public. The Koi pond, bridge and paths as well as the
prominent entry and facade features provide a focal point. Transportation fees as well as
accommodations to the State and turning lanes will provide reasonable access to the subject site. At the
moment, public transit does not travel this route. The applicant has expressed a willingness to
accommodate such access.
16. In conclusion, the proposed use complements activity that has been occurring in this area. It is hoped
that the development of the north portion of this site will spur redevelopment of the southern portion.
DECISION:
The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the
State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted
by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building
permit.
2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan
shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
issuance of construction permit.
3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-
4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to issuance of construction permit.
4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy.
5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade. The new
elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development
project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval.
6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the
parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval.
This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic
Development project manager.
7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager
indicating 12 -foot sidewalk widths and a I 0 -foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07
acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval.
8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use anu oj�PA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 25
review and approval at the time of building permit review.
9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside
ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain
garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development
shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this
site's paved or treated landscaping areas.
10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary
landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background
unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant
additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and
species as is planted along the north frontage
ORDERED THIS Ioth day of September 2009.
FRED J. KA MAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 10" day of September 2009 to the parties of record:
Spencer Alpert
Alpert International, LLP
10218 Richwood Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98177
Greg Fawcett
PO Box 402
Fall City, WA 98024
Keith Scully
Gendler & Mann
1424 Fourth Ave, Ste. 1015
Seattle, WA 98103
Jack McCullough
McCullough Hill, PS
701 Fifth Ave, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Pat Severin
Sound Development Group
15214 Avon -Allen Rd.
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
Steve Van Til
Port Quendall Company
505 Union Station
505 Fifth Ave S, Ste_ 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Larry Reymann
1313 N 38'h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Mr. Brad Nicholson
Attn: Keith Scully
1424 Fourth Ave., Ste. 1015
Seattle, WA 98103
Jessie Clawson
McCullough Hill, PS
701 Fifth Ave, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Geraldine Reinart, PE
159 Denny Way #I I I
Seattle, WA 98109
Rich Wagner
Baylis Architects
10801 Main Street
Bellevue, WA 98004
Frank and Carrie Lord
4041 2324 Ave SE
Sammamish, WA 98075
Dr. Joel Massmann
6520 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Dan Mitzel
11 i Cleveland Avenue
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
Pat Bunting
3643 Leg Road
Bow, WA 98232
Mel Maertz Ann Nielsen Vanessa Dolbee
16921 Larch Way Assistant City Attorney Associate Planner
Lynnwood, WA City of Renton City of Renton
Hawk's Landing Mixed Use an_ -SPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
September 10, 2009
Page 26
Kayren Kittrick
Community and Economic
Development
TRANSMITTED THIS 10`4 day of September 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transpiration Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, reuuest for reconsideration must be tiled in
writing on or before 5:00 .m. September 24 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 writine on or before 5:00 .m. September 24 2009.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be re uired 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.
^J
Z w
w.
'y111
a �
�
ff
y
�yy
��
v v
5aro /YAWD114 31VIS931NI
_r.6PI
i
Z
.a
a
v
4
r �
z�
�r
m
X
w
ppppA v`�o9°D
y
�yy
��
=5o A
ow
\
W
`h
r
� a
�r
m
X
w
l
r"d 3
EqqA
S�
O
i
J
C7 O
2 W
m
F
g
A
F—
1-4
co
x
W
t "
a is a
w
b,
�• �..: 3z �
� �
6S
s i i � � � �` �
R R � �9e R $
�3�55i
gg gg
l
r"d 3
EqqA
S�
O
i
J
C7 O
2 W
m
F
g
A
F—
1-4
co
x
W
Ffl�T,�
x
�
�
IRR man i
[ORR we
Jul MI
I NOR Me
.IOWA pm
a� l
U-4 In
a MM
r-;:
tax, I 1 .9 ;i !� t .I I - -1
ifgri 11
;pyI E
51 RIP
I § j
110. IV.
TAH
co
--- ----------
I Nil
Oft;
x3yeLls
--- ----------
I Nil
a. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines;
The subject property is located within Design District 'C'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable_ As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of
the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met.
Two categories have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines' that, while not
mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following
are the categories for compliance:
M=Met NM=Not Met PM= Partially Met NA= Not Applicable
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton
can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to
a miraop nadPstrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are
organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use;
create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to
businesses.
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials.
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple
transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in
size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its
appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the CiWs Arterial Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such
streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks.
Internal or local roads (public or
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize
buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and
solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the
district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase
privacy for residential uses located near the street.
Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades"
and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the
sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between
the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited
Minimum Standard. Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses.
Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a
pedestrian -oriented facade
Staff Comment. The majority of the fafade facing Lake Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum
standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately 62 feet of the southern side
of the fapade is not designed to meet this standard. This 61 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding. As
such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -
oriented fagode. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic
Development for review and opprovol by the project manager prior to building permit approval.
Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be
set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the
building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1000b)
Minimum Standard: If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping
between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk
(see illustration, RMC 4-3-10DE7c).
Guideline: Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light {both direct and
reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas).
Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents`
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the
pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and
open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries.
Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a
courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
Minimum Standard: 5econdary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide
over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting
street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian -
oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or
combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade.
Guideline: For projectsthat include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street
and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods
are preserved.
5. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e_, waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service
and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas_
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian
environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service
vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e)_
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090.
Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall
be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wail or fence and have self-closing
doors (see illustration, RMC 44- ,-_1o0E7f).
Staff Comment: The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on oll sides with
the exception of a roof. The applicant has indicated that if a roof was provided then the dumpsters would have to be
pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty
it into the truck. In order for the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be
required As such, sLC recommends approval of this modification.
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped
planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility.
Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of
the three.
6. Gateways:
Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural
elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible
with the district in form and scale.
Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shalt be marked with visually prominent features (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3.100.E7g).
Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h)_
Minimum Standard. Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the following
a. Public art;
b. Monuments;
c_ Special landscape treatment;
d. open space/plaza;
e. Identifying building form;
f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards;
g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo);
h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed).
P
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
M
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of
transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure
sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian
environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades;
minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district_
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings.
Minimum Standard. On Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: =` 'U1
L-A
VN
(a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking_ No
more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking
and vehicular access.
(b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required
parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080 Parking, Loading and Driveway
Regulations.
(c) On -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street.
Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature
landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards.
Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate,.:0,
Ell
future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would
feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of
two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be
physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection
F5a of this Section).
Staff Comment: The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of 1,500 feet of perimeter
area. in addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking lot
would remain with full build out of the subject site. Lake Washington Boulevard is the only access to the subject site,
which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. in order for there to be
sufficient internal circulation at o future date, this surface parking lot would be required. As such, stuff recommends
approval of the surface parking lot as proposed.
Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended.
ZLA
Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and w? ,
pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building fayade.
Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the c
interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway
features as dictated by location.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever
possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection
RMC 4-3-100.F5b).
-
�taff Comment: See section G. 'Lighting" below -
Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impart (see RMC 4-4-08OF7,
Landscape Requirements).
Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide
r
on-site buffering from visual im acts.
Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides'r
where possible, rather than internal drive aisles.
Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on
the streetscape.
3. Structured Parking Garages:
intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban
Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact
of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting,Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of
7594 of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100-F5c).
(b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade.
Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall
be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping - 'this includes a combination of
evergreen and decid uou s trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to
high visibility streets.
(b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the
:3
ZJ
1771
landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible
treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated
with the architectural design of the building:
(1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars);
(2) Decorative artwork;
(3) Display windows;
(4) Brick, tile, or stone;
f5) Pre -cast decorative panels;
(6) Vine -covered trellis;
(7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or
(g) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard.
(c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular
entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonrytrim, or
other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.11`5d).
Guideline: Parking garage entriesshould be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If
possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building -
Guideline: Pa rking garage entries should not dominate the streetsca pe.
Guideline. The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of
garage entries.
Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative
77-1
grilles, or trellis work with landscaping.
Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms,
materials, and/or details to enhance garages.
Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be
visible from the street or sidewalks -
4. Vehicular Access:
Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off
streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets.
Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets MEIEJEJ
when available.
❑
❑
❑
Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented streets.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be
restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street.
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian
networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer
and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and
through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular
traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking tots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots.
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking
areas.
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable
building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100-G4a). -
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian
environment.
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings,
open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration,
IT
F I
subsection RMC4-3-100.G4b).
Minimum Standard. Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel.
Minimum Standard- Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or
texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c).
Staff Comment: The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking lots would
be different material or texture from the adjacent paving materials, although there are some portions that appear to be
asphalt with striping. As such, stoff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new site plant
that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking for as a different material or texture from the adjacent
paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community
and Economic Development project manager,
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate
anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width
(measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8
-
foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d).
Staff Comment. The proposed sidewalk width is 10 -feet and the proposed landscape strip is 9 -feet in width. As
mentioned above in the project narrative, the City has received Capital improvement Funds, which potently would
fund the extension of the May Creek Trail, which would end at the south end of the subject parcel. In order for this
trial to continue to the existing King County Trial system located north of the subject site, near,VMAC, the City's
Parks Department requested that the sidewalk in this area hove enough width to accommodate a multi -use trial in
addition to a traditional sidewalk Hotel patrons and members of the public would be using this sidewalk; in
addition, trait users would be utilizing this sidewalk to connect to the grater King County trial system. Bosed on the
anticipated number of users in this location, 1 feet would not be appropriate sidewalk width to accommodate
anticipated pedestrian traffic. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide an
updated site plan to the City of Renton Project Manager indicating a 12 -foot sidewalk width and a 10 -foot wide
landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, Prior to construction permit approval.
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries
Win'
shall be allowed.
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the
anticipated number of users. A 10- 12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking
four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking
abreast, whereas a smaller 5 — 6 hoot pathway will accommodate two individuals.
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of
walkway or sight lines to building entries.
Minimum Standard; All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can
demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the
design of the development.
Guideline: Through -block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks
a.g , `
-'
with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-
100.G4e)
Guideline. Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, through -block connections should be at least 6
w-
-
feetin width
Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through -block connections should be at least 12 feet in
_I
r=:
r
Width
.
Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum 0.25 mile apart
"_=I
IF
Guideline: As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian-sca led light
17 .,w
fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet
of the required walkway should be provided
Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat
-
3;3,.
walls, or similar treatment.
Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established.
J1, E f
ELI
Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation.
3. Pedestrian Amenities.
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for
pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under
typical seasonal weather conditions.
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or
_'
L
El
building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the
building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level.
Staff Comment. As proposed, canopies along the fagade fronting take Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width
standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies have been proposed to be provided for
approximately 38.5 percent of the fd�ode or approximately 60 liner feet The 60 feet of the fagode where canopies are
proposed is along the portion of the building that would he the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington
Boulevard. Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this fapade that brings many portions of the
structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead
weather protection As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of canopy coverage.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant
materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building
entrances.
Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided.
Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided.
Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -
related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at
facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-300-G4f).
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular
circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and
active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient
locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such
activity.
1- Landscaping:
intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas
of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the
aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community.
Minimum Standard. All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 44-070, Landscaping).
Minimum Standard. Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined
by the City of Renton -
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all
other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4 -3 -
Minimum Standard. The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building,
the site, and use.
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant
material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the a rchitecture or concept of the development.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from
streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured
from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13b.
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree
species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet
or two inch caliper fas measured four feetfrom the top of the root ball) respectively.
Minimum Standard. Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least
12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet.
Staff Comment. As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rote of planning is less then one per
20 square feet of londscoped area. The applicant has proposed to use raingardens, within these areas ornamental shrubs
are not proposed to be planted. The proposed roingardens reflect the applicants desire to provide a development that
minimizes its effects on the environment and/or is green". The raingardens are coiculated into the landscaped area and
therefore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area; as such, staff recommends approval of this modification.
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the
landscaped area within three years of installation.
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not
less than three years and in sufficient amountto ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year
following installation.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows:
(1) Required Amount:
Total Number ofI Minimum Required Landscape Area*
Spaces
1 15 to 50 1 15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99 1 25 square feet/parking space
M
100 or more
35 square feet/parking space
Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter
parking lot landscaping areas.
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas.
(3) Plant at least one tree for everysix parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height
of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four
. .
feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
(4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per SDD square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall atV
sl
planting and have a mature height between three and four feet,
(5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
(6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided,
that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
(7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
El
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that
dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas_
=A
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was notsubmitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction or building permit approval.
Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings.
Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses
==.
attention to preferred views.
Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged.
"
t -
Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available.
j
Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly
r;
accessible spaces.
Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made
-
ofweather-resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained_
Guideline. Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors
and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and
inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly
at street corners_
Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall
provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area
shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or
recreation area shall be subjectto approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one
or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for
developments having more than 1DD units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces;
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens_ Such spaces above the street level must feature
views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development;
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system;
(d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game
rooms, or other similar facilities; or
(e) Children's play spaces.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways,
771A,;',
..
parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in
-
_
dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not
a=:
count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from
abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to
create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13c).
Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common
space/recreation area requirement-
equirementMinimum
MinimumStandard: in mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive
area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation
common space requirement.
imum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludesking
Land
garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d)
ording to the following formula:
1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space
Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included:
El
L1
Ei
(a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-
way or a nonvehicular courtyard;
(b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving;
(c) on-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and
Staff Comment: See comment under G "Lighting" Below. Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies
with the minimum standards at this time.
(d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or
open space.
Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection
L23
EJ
LJ
RMC 4-3-100.1-13e) and may be required by the Director:
(a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space.
(b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as
adjacent to a building entry.
(c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space.
(d) Provide movable public seating.
Minimum Standard; The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space:
(a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots;
(b) Adjacent chain link fences;
(c) Adjacent blank walls;
(d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and
(e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian
I
I
environment.
I
Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space- However,
:J
ii
r
Z
where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian -oriented
space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space -
Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and
_
light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions.
Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so
,
they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units.
Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are
r
encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13f).
sm
Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building
entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure.
Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located,
visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and
parking areas.
N
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
M
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses
appropriate building materials that are suitable forthe Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture.
L Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a
building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add
visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.15a).
Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following:
(a) Defined entry features;
(b) Window treatment;
(c) Bay windows and/or balconies;
(d) Roof line features; or
(e) Other features as approved by the Director
N
Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration,
El
El
El.
rul
subsection RMC 4-3-100.15b):
(a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be
40 feet
(b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet.
(c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the
height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall).
Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street
edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the
apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the
neighborhood.
Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character.
Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk
and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or
public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15c).
2. Ground -Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian
environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest.
Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are
Li
LnJ
prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: LA.
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater
than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation orother architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of aground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a
window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
Staff Comment. See staff comment Section A.2. Building Location and Orientation" above.
Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the Ed El
E717-11 N
following (see illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.15d):
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to
the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of
this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along 77
_
77
the facade's ground floor. - -
-
.x. F
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear
frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street)
F.
comprised of transparent windows and/or doors.
Minimum Standard. other facade window requirements include the following:
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may
.
be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall
be 50 percent
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays.
7. 71 17F71
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
771
LN
d Tinted and dark lass, highly reflective {mirror-
{ } g g y type) glass and flim are prohibited.
_
Guideline. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the
�nj
L3
following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e):
Li
(a) Facade Features:
(1) Recess;
(2) Overhang;
(3) Canopy;
(4) Trellis;
(5) Portico;
(6) Porch;
(7) Clerestory.
(b) Doorway Features:
(1) Transom windows;
(2) Glass windows flanking door,
(3) Large entry doors;
(4) ornamental lighting;
(5) Lighted displays.
(c) Detail Features:
(1) Decorative entry paving;
(2) ornamental building name and address;
(3) Planted containers;
(4) Street furniture (benches, etc.).
Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used
to provide ground -level detail.
St Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide any and/or all of the items listed above in order to
ornament the ground level of the proposed structure.
Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged.
3. Building Roof lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to
the visual continui of the district-
Minimum
istrictMinimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof
profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.150:
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within
150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC
4-4-D95E, Roof -Top Equipment.
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to
minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations.
Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the build
4. Building Materials:
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage the use of materials that reduce
the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood.
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished an
all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of
detailing for all visible facades.
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or
textural changes.
Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development.
Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass,
and cast -in-place concrete.
Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating
or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork.
Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative
bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials.
Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highlytextured finishes
or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4')
N
M
Intent To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are
both clear and of appropriate scale forthe project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban
Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
St Comment: At this time the applicant has not submitted a detailed sign design as such, staff cannot determine
comaliance with this standard. At the time of sign permit approval staff will review for this design standard.
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100-13a):
i. Pole signs,
ii. Roof signs;
iii_ Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-
lit logo signs less than ten (10).5q uare feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back4it.
(see staff comment above)
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design.
3
177El
Z
(see staff comment above)
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be
limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping
(ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign_ Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director,
(see staff comment above)
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
(see staff comment above)
Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit,
_
although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged.
(see staff comment above)
Guideline: Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type offreestanding sign.
(see staff comment above)
Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on
pedestrian -oriented streets.
stuff comment above)
G:
M
'3'M
nsure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways,
as, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day
Fpermit
night.
mum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting,
tzx'_
rior On -Site.
Li
Comment. Staff recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide alighting plan that
uately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building
permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular
movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as
exemptfrom provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-5ite_
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project
off-site.
Staff Comment: See Condition above
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at.
primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces.
Staff Comment See Condition above
Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape
features such as specimen trees.
Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building
facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc.
Michael W. Gendier*
David S. Mann
Keith P_ Scully
Brendan W. Donckers
*Also admitted is Oregon
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015
SEATTLE WA 98101
November 4, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7" Floor
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Hotel application,
No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H
Dear Members of Council:
(246) 621-8868
Fax ("246) 621-0512
keith�gendlermann.com
www,geitdlermann.com
This case involved voluminous briefing. We ask that you review all of the briefing provided to
date, but also provide this letter to summarize and guide you through it as you consider
whether to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal.
This site has unique challenges.
Uncontroverted evidence shows that the hotel proposed here is upslope from the Port Quendall
Superfund site. Port Quendall is contaminated with extremely toxic substances, and the
Department of Ecology and EPA have information that these toxic substances move via
groundwater flow to Lake Washington. For more information, see Appellant Nicholson
Ilearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the attached Declar4tion
of Joel Massman.
Groundwater flow must be controlled, or infiltration will make the toxins flowing from
Port Quendall to Lake Washington worse, An EIS should be ordered.
Uncontroverted evidence in the record shows that groundwater flow transmits toxins from the
contaminated soil at Port Quendall into Lake Washington. And water that infiltrates the
ground from the site flows downslope to Port Quendall. Although the Applicant argues that it
will channel stormwater to May Creek through its as -yet incomplete stormwater management
plan, and not infiltrate the ground with it, evidence uncovered after the hearing indicates that
the drainage ditch relied upon by the Applicant actually will infiltrate the ground, leading to
Clerk
November 4, 2009
Page 2
increased groundwater and toxin flow to Lake Washington. An Environmental Impact Study
should be performed to evaluate how much water is infiltrating the ground through the ditch,
how much of an impact it has on Lake Washington, and what the best means of dealing with
the impacts may be. SEGB asserts that this problem can be resolved simply by changing the
direction of stormwater flow on the site to move it away from Port Quendall, and through the
installation of a stormwater detention pond on the May Creek side of the site. An EIS will
answer critical environmental questions about this project and the adjacent superfund site. For
more information, see Appellant Nicholson Motion for Reconsideration and Declaration of
expert Joel Massman, filed with the Hearing Examiner on September 24, 2009.
We need a stormwater management plan before the site is approved to know if
stormwater will be adequately managed.
A stormwater management plan is required in order to complete the conditions of the approval
on this project - but we don't know what will be in it, or what the Applicant will propose as
their final solution to the stormwater problems on site. The public does not have an
opportunity to comment on the stormwater plan when it is eventually completed, and there is
no mechanism for the Hearing Examiner or the Council to review it. The Hearing Examiner
and Council have broad authority to impose conditions on a development proposal. While
most development sites can safely wait to complete their stormwater plan after approvals have
been received, this site is unique. We should know in advance how the Applicant will handle
stormwater, and the public should be allowed to comment. For more information see
Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the
attached Declaration of Joel Massman.
The Examiner reasonably imposed the condition of Best Available Science on stormwater
management at the site.
The Examiner has been granted authority by the Renton Code to impose conditions on
developmc,its. In this case, the Examiner, unde-rstanding the unique nature of this site and the
challenges to the long-term health of the region, imposed a requirement of Best Available
Science on stormwater management on the site. Best Available Science is a commonly -used
standard in Washington law to protect critical areas, and means what it says: that the Applicant
does not need to create any new methods, but must choose the best scientifically -valid method
available to manage stormwater. See RCW 36.70A.172.
The Applicant asks you to impose a "Best Management Practice" requirement instead of the
Examiner's Best Available Science requirement. But "Best Management Practices" are defined
by the Renton Municipal Code as measures pertaining to wetlands protection or short-term
construction methods, not long-term stormwater solutions. RMC 4-11-020. The Examiner's
discretion should be left undisturbed on this issue. For more information, see Appellant Brad
Clerk
November 4, 2009
Page 3
Nicholson Response to Renton & Hawks Landing Requests for Reconsideration, filed on
October 5, 2009 with the Hearing Examiner.
For the reasons summarized here and presented more fully in our briefing to the Examiner, we
urge you to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal.
Very truly yours,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
r
Keith P. Scully
KPS : den
cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton
Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicant
Client
November 6, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF KING )
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and
says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over
the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 6th day of November, 2009, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and
placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail
to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Alpert International, represented by
McCullough Hill, P.S.; and 2) Brad Nicholson, sound End Gives Back represented by Keith Scully,
Gendler & Mann, LLP. of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Hawk's Landing Mixed
Use application. (File No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H)
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 6th day of November, 2009.
Cynthia . Moya
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing in Renton
My commission expires: 8/27/2010
Denis Law
1 f�
Mayor
A.
..0
City Clerk - Bonnie I.Walton
November 6, 2009
APPEAL FILED BY:
1) Alpert International, represented by John McCullough & Jessica Clawson,
McCullough Hill, P.S.; and
2) Brad Nicholson, South End Gives Back, represented by Keith Scully, Gendler &
Mann, LLP.
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner`s decision dated 9/10/2009 regarding the Hawk's Landing
Mixed Use Environmental & Site Plan Review application, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N.
(Fife No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Environmental & Site Plan Review
application has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all
parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters
limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the
notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00
pm, Mondavi November 16,2009.
NOTICE
6,2009.NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 3, 2009, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hail, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached are copies of both appeals and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding
appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council
will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon, the written record previously
established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have
been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or
testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
cc: Council Liaison
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
Denis Law
city O
Mayor-
City Clerk - Bonnie i. Walton
November 6, 2009
APPEAL FILED BY:
1) Alpert International, represented by John McCullough & Jessica Clawson,
McCullough Hill, P.S.; and
2) Brad Nicholson, South End Gives.Back, represented by Keith Scully, Gendler &
Mann, LLP. -
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 9/10/2009 regarding the Hawk's Landing
Mixed Use Environmental & Site. Plan Review application, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N.
(File No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Environmental & Site Plan Review
application has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all
parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters
limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the
notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00
Pm, Monday, November 16, 2009.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 3, 2009, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented. for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached are copies of both appeals and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding
appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council
will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously
established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have
been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or
testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I..Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
cc: Council Liaison
I 055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
November 6, 2009
APPEAL FILED BY:
1) Alpert International, represented by John McCullough & Jessica Clawson,
McCullough Hill, P.S.; and
2) Brad Nicholson, South End Gives Back, represented by Keith Scully, Gendler &
Mann, LLP.
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 9/10/2009 regarding the Hawk's Landing
Mixed Use Environmental & Site Plan Review application, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N.
(File No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Environmental & Site Plan Review
application has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all
parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters
limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the
notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00
pm, Monday, November 16, 2009.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 3, 2009, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached are copies of both appeals and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding
appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council
will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously
established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have
been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or
testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
cc: Council Liaison
Spencer Alpert Steve Van Til loch Wagner
Alpert International, LLP Port Quendall Company Bdylis Architects
505 Union Station
10218 Richwood Av NW th 10810 Main Street
ttSea
Seattle, WA 98177 505 Seattle, WA 9$104 Av S, Suite 940 Bellevue, WA 98004
Greg Fawcett Larry Reymann Frank and Carrie Lord
P.o. Box 402 1313 N 38th Street 4041 232"' Av SE
Fall City, WA 98024 Renton, WA 98056 Sammamish, WA 98075
Keith Scully Mr. Brad Nicholson Dr. Joel Massmann
Gendler & Mann Sound End Gives Back
Mercer
1424 Fourth Av, Suite 1015 2302 NE 28th ST MMercer Way
Seattle, WA 98103 Renton, WA 98058 MerIsland, WA 98040
Jack McCullough Jessie Clawson
Dan Mittel
McCullough Hill, PS McCullough Hill, PS
1 l 1 Cleveland Avenue
701 Fifth Av, Suite 7220 701 Fifth Av, Suite 7220
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
Seattle, WA 98144 Seattle, WA 98104
Pat Severin Geraldine Reinart, PE Pat Bunting
Sound Development Group 159 Denny Way #111 3643 Leg Road
15214 Avon -Allen Rd. Seattle, WA 98109 Bow' WA 98232
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
Mel Maertz
16921 Larch Way
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Ann Nielson
Assistant City Attorney Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Kayren Kittrick, GED
City of Renton
'yrs Y
-lerk's Office Distribution List
Appeal, Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Application
LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
November 6, 2009
1
Renton Reporter
✓ 2
City Attorney
Larry Warren ✓
Ann Nielson
V 1
City Council *
Julia Medzegian
S
Community and Economic
Alex Pietsch','
Development
Neil Wattsv
Jennifer Henning/
Stacy Tucker vI
Vanessa Dolbee✓`
Kayren Kittrick ✓
If%J1
de
1
Fire Marshall
Dave Pargas
✓
Fire & Emergency Services
o�n
7
Planning Commission
Judith Subia
/
V 16
Parties of Record
(see attached list)
/1
Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman
✓ 1
PW/Transportation Services
Peter Hahn
A
PW/Utilities & Tech Services
Lys Hornsby
V' 1
LUA-09-060
• *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only
C�j,i
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
i7'
-l',"A-RENJITO
.`::I-RENiTO
RECD VED
C;Iry :^LERK'S OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME G I L� FILE NO. 2 -VA O G G ., F�
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the �'
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated �eofe_m %ii. _, 20,21'.
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:
Name: Fr -a NiCh a iSD EP d 6 VP 5
ao CSG-8�
Address: 02 NE 2 8 .�� si 6
ffnjL&"-141A0
Phone Number: ',5 -414d5- 06 S9 e
Email: r d ff,;10
REPRESENTATIVE ( ANY):
Name: Al -SWIL
J
Address: 6 rW rr: M a17na L p
1,24 40 Ave- #I"L e le, W4 s16)l
Phone Number: 0 far!g
Email: ke1 % � aea ferrrrann, (gym_
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No.
Error: see
Correction:
Conclusions:
No.
Error: See c
Correction:
Other:
No.
Error:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief. e(f cl j- e d
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
r v
AppellanURepresentative Signature f ype/Printed Name Date
NOTE) Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures.
STATEMEN'r OE ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
S1'Pr1 Appeal
l�indin�s
15, p. 16. Error of fact in finding that stormwater will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants.
Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present,
Conclusions
T¶ 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors of law in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse
the City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environmental harm
will be "exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would not percolate
into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants.
Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Determination of Significance,
or additional mitigation.
Master Site Plan
Findings
27, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with
pollutants.
Decision
Error of law in not requiring a stonnwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of
the Master Site Plan and Site Plan.
¶ 10, p. 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside
ditch to convey stormwater, rather than requiring other stormwater control measures.
Remedy
Reverse the SEPA detennination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a
Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with
directions to require a stormwater plan and habitat management plan utilizing BAS to treat
stormwater on site.
NOU-04-2{309 04:24PM FROM- 206-621-0912
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
wrromgEys-AT-LAw
Michael W. Gendler-
�3Vld S. Minn 1424 ]FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015
Keith Y. Scully SEATTLE W.4 98101
Brendan W. Aoackers
-Also NQMtI;CJ in Onion
November 4, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7" Floor
Renion, WA 98057
T-606 P.001/003 F-762
RE, Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Hotel application,
No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H
Dear Members of Council:
(206) 621-8868
Fax (206) 621-0512
keitA(ggendleraunn com
ww w.gcndlcrtnann.cnrn
This case involved voluminous briefing. We ask that you review all of the briefing provided to
date, but also provide this letter to summarize and guide you through it as you consider
whether to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal.
This site has unique challenges.
Uncontroverted evidence shows that the hotel proposed here is upslope from the Port Quendall
Superfund site. Port Quendall is contaminated with extremely toxic substances, and the
Department of Ecology and EPA have information that these toxic substances move via
groundwater flow to Lake Washington. For more informwrion, see Appellant Nicholson
Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the attached Declaration
of Joel Massman.
Groundwater flow must be controlled, or infiltration will make the toxins flowing from
Port Quendall to Lake Washington worse. An EIS should be ordered.
Uncontroverred evidence in the record shows that groundwater flow transmits toxins from the
contaminated soil at Pori Quendall into Lake Washington. And water that infiltrates the
ground from the site flows downslope to Port Quendall. Although the Applicant argues that it
will channel stormwater to May Creek through its as -yet incomplete stormwater management
plan, and not infiltrate the ground with it, evidence uncovered after the hearing indicates that
the drainage ditch relied upon by the Applicant actually will infiltrate the ground, leading to
NOV-04-2009 04:24PM FROM- 206-621-0512 T-809 P 002/003 F-T62
Clerk
November 4, 2009
Page 2
increased groundwater and toxin flow to Lake Washington. An Environmental Impact Study
should be performed to evaluate how much water is infiltrating the ground through the ditch,
how much of an impact it has on Lake Washington, and what the best means of dealing with
the impacts may be. SEGB asserts that this problem can be resolved simply by changing the
direction of stormwater flow on the site to move it away from Port Quendall, and through the
installation of a stormwater detention pond on the May Creek side of the site. An EIS will
answer critical environmental questions about this project and the adjacent superfund site. For
more information, see Appellant Nicholson Motion for Reconsideration and Declaration of
expert Joel Massman, filed with the Hearing Examiner on September 24, 2009.
We need a stormwater management plan before the site is approved to know if
stormwater will be adequately managed.
A stormwater management plan is required in order to complete the conditions of the approval
on this project - but we don't know what will be in it, or what the Applicant will propose as
their final solution to the stormwater problems on site. The public does not have an
opportunity to comment on the stormwater plan when it is eventually completed, and there is
no mechanism for the Hearing Examiner or the Council to review it. The Hearing Examiner
and Council have broad authority to impose conditions on a development proposal. While
most development sites can safely wait to complete their stormwater plan after approvals have
been received, this site is unique. We should know in advance how the Applicant will handle
stormwater, and the public should be allowed to comment. For more information see
Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the
attached Declaration of Joel Massman.
The Examiner reasonably imposed the condition of Best Available Science on stormwater
management at the site.
The Examiner has been granted authority by the Renton Code 'to impose conditions on
developments. In this case, the Examiner, understanding the unique nature of this site and the
challenges to the long-term health of the region, imposed a requirement of Best Available
Science on stormwater management on the site. Best Available Science is a commonly -used
standard in Washington law to protect critical areas, and means what it says: that the Applicant
does not need to create any new methods, but must choose the best scientifically -valid method
available to manage stormwater. See RCW 36.70A.172,
The Applicant asks you to impose a "Best Management Practice" requirement instead of the
Examiner's Best Available Science requirement. But "Best Management Practices" are defined
by the Renton Municipal Code as measures pertaining to wetlands protection or short-term
construction methods, nor long-term stormwater solutions. RMC 4-11-024. The Examiner's
discretion should be left undisturbed on this issue. For more information, see Appellant Brad
MOV -04-2009 O4:25PM FROM- 206-621-0512 T-608 P.Na/003 F-752
Clerk
November 4, 2009
Page 3
Nicholson Response to Renton & Hawks Landing Requests for Reconsideration, filed on
October 5, 2009 with the Hearing Examiner.
For the reasons summarized here and presented more fully in oar briefing To the Examiner, we
urge you to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal.
Very truly yours,
GENDLER &c MANN, LLP
Keith P. Scully
KPS:den
cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton
Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicant
Client
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
Michael W_ Gendler*
David S. Mann
Keith P. Scully
Brendan W. Donckers
*Also admitted in Oregon
Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7' Floor
Renton, WA 98057
1424 FoURTil AVENUE, SUITE 1015
SEATTLE WA 98101
September 24, 2009
RE: File No. LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
Dear Clerk:
Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal to the Renton City Council.
FIECEWED
--STV CLERK'S OFRC:E
(206) 621-8868
Fax (200) 621-0512
keiih@gcndleriiianti.com
www. gendle r rnann. cu rn
We are also filing today a Motion for Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. We
respectfully request that no action be taken on the appeal until we've received a response to our
motion.
Very truly yours,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
11---el����� rt�z
Keith P. Scully
KPS. -den
Enclosure
cc: Client
CJc.. -Jyd V-au�+ma,V,.
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
ATToxNEYS-AT-LAw
Michael W. Gendler•
David S. Mann 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015
Keith P. Scully SEATTLE WA 98101
Brendan W. Donckers
*Also admitted in Oregon
November 2, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
C1-t;rk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7"' Floor
Renton, WA 98057
(206) 621-8868
Fax (206) 621-05 12
keithfgendlerma nn.com
www. g endlermann, corn
RE: Amended Notice of Appeal in llawk"s landing Howl application.
No. LUA-09-060, ECI� SA -M, SA -11
Dear Clerk -
Attached please find an amended notice of appeal in this matter. We filed a notice of appeal on
September 24, 2009, asking for review of the Hearing Examiner's September 10, 2009 report
and decision.
This amended notice asks for review of the Hearing Examiner's October 19, 2009 denial of the
motion for reconsideration, as well as the September 10, 2009 report and decision.
Very truly yours,
GENDLER & MANN. LLP
Keith P. Scully
KPS : den
l"11closure
cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton
Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicant
Client
C Li �-e �
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
69
APPLICATION NAME �� 15 FILE NO —CiJd
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated ' C 0l -ff , 20Q-�,
1. IDrNTIF1CATZON OF PARTY
r`'p 6er 16� �po� A-
I
-
APPELLANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email:
REPRESENTATIVE (1F ANY):
Name: �Lo I (-U) /-')
Address: N L q)c))
Phone Number: 6 (5(
Email:-1C�'9�
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
g
Findinof Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error: y L
Correction:
Conclusions
No. Error: tl
Correction:
Other:
No. Error:
Correction:
C+
l
SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: �C r-_
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
_ Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
epresentative Signaturg _b Z Type/Printed Name Da
NOTE: Please refer to Title TV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11017, for specific appeal procedures.
AMENDED
STATEMENT OF ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Motion for Reconsideration
Coned nGionc
Page 1, denial of motion to admit new evidence and reconsider ruling.
SEPA Appeal
Findings
15, p. 16. Error of fact in finding that stormwater will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants.
Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present.
Conclusions
1111 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors of law in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse
the City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environmental harm
will be "exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would not percolate
into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants.
Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Determination of Significance,
or additional mitigation.
Master Site Plan
Findings
¶ 27, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with
pollutants.
Decision
Error of law in not requiring a stormwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of
the Master Site Plan and Site Pian.
10, p. 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside
ditch to convey stormwater, rather than requiring other stormwater control measures.
Remedy
Reverse the SEPA determination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a
Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with
directions to require a storrnwater plan and habitat management plan utilizing BAS to treat
stormwater on site.
�
_ �
. �
m\\ �
2 2 ®y �
®/ \ 3 �
\ / \ / �
» \ \
\ \ { / �
rs\°
%ate
\ \ \ \ �
- g t
m > �
a �
» w
A
2
^
\ d
�
y \
\
2
/ ®
\ �
V'-02-2009 11:58AM FROM- 206-621-0512 T-805 P 001/004 F-759
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
ATToRwys-AT-L.aw
Michael W. Gendler
David S. Mann 144 FOURTiE Avi=n:uE, SUITE I015
Keith P. Scully S; 4TTLE WA 98101
Brendan W. Doncicers
•Also xdmutra tri Orteun
November' -7, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7!" Floor
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Horcl application.
No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H
Dear Clerk:
01TV OF RFNToN.
NOV 0 2 2009
RECEVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
(206) 621.886a
Fax 1M) 62 1 -0512
1.ciavftendlernuno com
www.gendlcrmann corn
Attached please find an amended notice of appeal in this rnatrer. We filed a notice of appeal on
September 24, 2009, asking for review of the Hearing Examiner's September 10, 2009 report
and decision.
This amended notice asks for review of The Hearing Examiner's Ocrober 19, 2009 denial of the
morion for reconsideration, as well as the September 10, 2009 report and decision.
Very truly yours,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
Keith P. Scully
Enclosure
cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton
Jessica Clawson, AUorney for Applicata
Client
NO' -C2-20119 11:513AM FROM- 206-621-0512 7-1305 P 002/004 F-759
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION RECEIVED
f1ITY CLERK'S OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME [� FILE NO. L U" ~G 4J
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
14
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated - 204. G. t, d {"'
1DFNT CATION OF PARTY � C "Iw to
o L009 5119-
APPELLANT:
Name:
Address: "
Phone Number:
Email:
REPRES A'I7,VE IF f Yu 1 `�
Name. -
Address: 4 L J�''
6? Lam%
Phone Number: Z ��
Email: ee)±b
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
n'nding of Fact: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error: — (cc
Correction:
Conclusions:
No. Error:
CO=CElon:
Other: 1k
No. Error:
Correction:
W
3. SUMMARY OF ACT
JQN REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief -Cr- C -i ft4-4- .ye d
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Exarniner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
Le , N -1) / Z-1 0—�
epresentativeSignaturg-�.� Type/PrintedName Da
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter S, of the 2enton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1 10F, for specific. appeal procedures.
VOl'-02-2009 11:59AM FROG!- 206-621-0512 T-805 P 003/004 F-799
AMENDED
STATEMENT OF ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Motion for Reconsideration
Conclusions
Page 1, denial of motion to admit new evidence and reconsider ruling.
SEPA Appeal
Findin s
15, p. 16. Error of fact in finding that stormwater will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants.
Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present.
Conclusions
Tjj 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors of law in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse
the City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environmental harm
will be "exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would not percolate
into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants.
Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Determination of Significance,
or additional mitigation.
Master Site Plan
Findin s
1127, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with
pollutants.
Decision
Error of law in not requiring a stormwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of
the Master Site Plan and Site Plan.
¶ 10, p. 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside
ditch to convey stormwater, rather than requiring other stormwater control measures.
NOLV-02-2009 11:59AM FROM -
Remedy
206-621-0512 T-805 P 004/004 F-759
Reverse the SEPA determination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a
Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of the Master Site Plan and Sire Plan with
directions to require a stormwater plan and habitat management plan utili2ing SAS to treat
stormwater on site.
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION
APPLICATION NAME G(.W L r I _ FILE NO.
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Noti of Appeal from the decision or rece9nd5'b6Rbf the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated .1 �iY1�'� ��' - 20-Lq, SEP 2 4 zoog
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT: l
Name: 4
Address: 02 l �Z (C.� V AC. '` _ A) U)
Phone Number:
Email -
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S C?Ff IGE
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): f
Name: 1X G Lj- L] -
Address:_at �2-� cSU�i
Phone Number: 3
Email: 441Z -,e LL4
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Ple'a`se designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)
No. Error: _1" l� � A7' 7 � l f l l IicsxS .��/ VL�Q i � -
Correction: u u sc�
Conclusions:
No. Error:
Correction:
Other:
No. Error: _.
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Pkat R�l �JAr`z�
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
Appel, ep s ntative Signature TypelPrinted Name Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11017, for specific appeal procedures.
20681 23389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p 03 06 27 p m
McCullough Hill, PS.
701 Fifth Ave., Si tte 7220
Seattle WA 98104-7042
206-812-3388
206-812-3389 fax
www,mhseatde.com
TO: Bonnie Walton,
Renton City Clerk
FAX NO.: 425-430-6516
FROM: Jessie Clawson
DATE: November 2, 2009 -
CLIENT NO.:
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:
COMMENTS:
Fli Bonnie,
11-02-2009 1 16
o ( f 1_Fi
FAX COVER SHEET
6
Please see our amended appeal, attached. We paid the appeal fee on September 24, 2009, when we
originally appealed the Examiner's decision. This amends the appeal in response to the Examiner's
decision on our request for reconsideration.
Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks.
PLEASE CALL IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN TIIIS COMMUNICATION I5 INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF TILE
ADDIWMEE AND MAY BE CONVIDLNTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND MAY CONSTITUTE
INSIDE INFORMATION. UNAUTHORIZED, USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY BE
UNLAWFUL. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US AT
812-3388.
2058123388 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
Renton City Clerk
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
03 06 52 p m
MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS
November 2, 2009
RE: Applicant's amended appeal to City Council
LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
Hawk's Landing Hotel
Dear City Clerk:
1 1-02-2009 216
We filed an appeal regarding this matter on September 24, 2009, asking for review of the Heating
Examiner's September 10, 2009 decision. This letter amends our previous appeal to respectfully
request that the City Council review the Heating Examiner's decision, and the Hearing Examiner's
decision regarding the applicant's request for reconsideration.
RMC 4-5-100.F.7 allows the City Council to modify a decision of the Examiner if it determines that
a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record. Here, the Hearing Examiner's conclusions and
conditions regarding landscaping and stormwater were a result of a substantial errors in fact and/or
law.
The Hing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of
a substantial error of law and fact.
The applicant appeals the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10:
Conclusion : "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining
site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Tberefore, the remaining acreage
should be incorporated at least mit imally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with
sorne larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the
site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional
street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and
species as on the north frontage."
Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812,3389 • www.mhseatlle.com
2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill. p
Page 2 of 5
03.07.40 p m 11-02-2009 3 16
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along the
remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then, the applicant shall plant such trees at
the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage."
The applicant appeals this conclusion and this condition because:
• The applicant is already significantly improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it.
See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration
and blight that the current site represents." The property to which this condition applies lies
outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the
applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, it is an error
of law to impose this condition --this condition is not within the scope of the application and
may not properly be imposed under this application. When the applicant proposes
development in this portion of the site as part of a site plan and master site plan approval for
the remainder of the larger property, street trees would be required by code. In addition,
requiring street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard when there is no plan for
redevelopment may interfere with the future redevelopment of this portion of the site—
trees may need to be removed or relocated in order to accommodate the future development
(construction access, sidewalks, driveways, etc).
The applicant therefore requests the City Council to revise portions of Conclusion G and Condition
10 to read as follows:
Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining
site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefate,
The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
ptoposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan
application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. ,
north &eFutuxe redeveloament of the southern portion of the site not proposed for
development with this application will require s' n with i f on lands.ca '
requirements, including the planting of street ttees."
Condition 1 Q: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary
landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the
background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Aldiy, in
2068123389 Line 1 McCuklough Hill, P 03.0846 p m 11-02-2009 416
Page 3 of 5
The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding stormwater were a result o
a substantial error of law and fact
The applicant appeals the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9:
reclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should
use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch.
There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created
or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas."
Condition 9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before
conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means
including crater retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution
entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek
and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated
landscaping areas."
The applicant appeals this conclusion and condition because:
a The City of Renton has not adopted `best available science" as a standard for stormwater
treatment. The Hearing Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a
standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stonnwater, which includes the use of "best
management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standards, including
the use of best management practices in its stormwater system design. The City of Renton
has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance with the manual is
sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted
standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/ox Lake
Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping
areas."
The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own findings of fact, does not support
this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site
Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to
comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to
May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12 ----no evidence was submitted
into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the
use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that "The proposal will not be
exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into
Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations
regarding discharge from the subject site," (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). In addition, the
Nearing Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the stormwater "will not travel
2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
Page 4 of 5
03.0950 p rn 1142-2009 516
the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants
leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake." (SEPA Appeal, conclusion 6). As such,
the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9.
The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non -
regulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality (i -e., that the "development shall not
jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this
site's paved or treated landscaping areas' �.. No impacts are shown to warrant such a new
standard, and the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to create or impose such a
standard in the absence of such impacts. The law presumes that compliance with the City's
applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwater quality, so
this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's
intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from the City's
stormwater regulations, so we are appealing this issue.
• The Hearing Examiner responded to the applicant's request for reconsideration regarding
stormwater by essentially arguing that both May Creek and Lake Washington are critical
areas, so "best available science" should be used as a standard in this permit decision. The
Examiner then cited RCW 36.70A.172, the definition of best available science under the
Growth Management Act, as the standard that should be used in this permit decision. The
Examiner's reasoning regarding this matter is a substantial error of law. RCW 36.70A.172
requires jurisdictions to use best available science in developing comprehensive plan policies
and development regulations to protect critical areas. The permit decision in this case does
neither—instead, the Examiner is required to apply the existing policies and development
regulations that already been adopted by the City of Renton to this permit application.. The
Examiner does not have the jurisdiction -to caseate new regulations, and has limited
jurisdiction to "review and implement land use regulations" 'n the City of Renton, See RMC
3-1-5. Thus, the Examiner's introduction of a new standard, not adopted by the City
Council and outside of the City's already -adapted policies and regulations, is a substantial
error of law that must be remedied.
The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9
should be revised to read:
Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain, garden" feature is used. The applicant must
comply with the CiM of R to 's standards re rdin s rmwater the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manuals There is no evidence in e record that would -suggest
Creek or Lake WashiniLton would be ieooardized as a result of the am)lica.tion. The
Condition 9: "The applicant shall coMply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside
ditch. The stoffnwoft 964 be treated by w6tevei- meafts inehmlieg w*
2068123389 Line 1 McGuflough Hill. p
Page 5 of 5
03:10 59 p m 11-02-2009 616
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to
contact us with any questions or requests for additional information.
Sincerely,
Jessi M. Clawson
cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney
Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson
prvt
- ;
--NMI
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to
contact us with any questions or requests for additional information.
Sincerely,
Jessi M. Clawson
cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney
Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson
Ora
■■
i
IL
Cb
fl
I
J§
z ¢ u
�w
p
w �
►
o 04
i
IL
Cb
fl
I
J§
z ¢ u
Y
"R Denis Law, Mayor
JNr
October 19, 2009
Keith P. Scully
Gendler & Mann, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste, 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Jack McCullough
Jessica M. Clawson
McCullough Hill, PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
Spencer Alpert
Alpert International, LLP
10218 Richwood Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98177
CITY C RENTON
South End Gives f
Brad Nicholson
c/o Keith Scully
1424 Fourth Aven
Gendler & Man, l
Seattle, WA 9810
Ann Nielsen
Assistant City At.
City of Renton
Re: Hawk's Landing Request for Reconsideration
Dear Attorneys, Applicant and Appellant:
r'f
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
This office has received two Requests for Reconsideration on the Hawk's Landing Master Site
Plan, Site Plan and Environmental Appeal decisions. The original appellants, South End Gives
Back (SEGS) and Brad Nicholson and the underlying applicant for the Hawk's Landing Hotel
have each sought changes to the original decision.
The original appellants have suggested that this office consider new information about the
manner in which stormwater is managed by the applicant. In the original appeal, the appellants
maintained that the "rain garden" used to collect stormwater would permit infiltration into the
ground and that groundwater would flow toward the Quendall Super -fund site. The appellants
argued ground flow would potentially leach additional contaminants into Lake Washington. The
record reflected and continues to reflect that the rain garden would actually convey stormwater
through a closed system to a ditch running along the west side of the property. The main thrust of
their current request is that stormwater will be conveyed to the ditch and that ditch permits
infiltration into the groundwater. They argue that the plans to use the ditch and that the ditch's
conditions (pond scum) were not known prior to the hearing. The record shows that the original
plans demonstrated the proposed functions of the rain garden and conveyance system. Further,
the ditch had been conveying stormwater from a site that is covered almost entirely with
impermeable surfaces in the same manner as when the site was actively used and has been
conveying stormwater in its current inactive state. There is no reason to consider the evidence as
new and unavailable at the time of the hearing.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515
This papercontalns 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer
RENTON'
A IIEAD UI' THE CURVE
The underlying applicant for Hawk's Landing had two major objections to the decision. It
suggests that this office went beyond the scope of the original Master Plan's boundaries when
requiring additional landscaping. The first objection had to do with additional landscaping to
screen the proposed development from the unsightly portions of the site generally east of the
parking areas and to plant street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard continuing the planting
pattern for the site south of the main site. The applicant introduced evidence that the City has
funds to address those areas along Lake Washington Boulevard covered by the condition. That
specific evidence was not available at the public hearing. The second objection was to using
"best available science" to manage stormwater so that contaminants from the site do not reach
May Creek and Lake Washington.
This office believes that the Master Plan should not have ignored those areas outside of the
immediate hotel redevelopment parcel. Doing so leaves visually unappealing pavement as a
dominant feature from the hotel and its grounds. In other words the applicant's limiting of the
Master Plan site probably should have been initially rejected by staff. Frankly, when coupled
with an immediate Site Plan review, Master Planning adds very little. There is nothing to
coordinate the hotel's site plan with in this case – it stands alone. But rejecting the Master Plan
would be inappropriate at this stage in the process since in the main it is well-designed.
Therefore, in order to give some weight and meaning to the Master Plan review, the additional
screening to hide or soften the impacts of the unsightly eastern parcel appears reasonable. The
condition for landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard south of the project confines will be
modified to allow the City to install the landscaping.
The condition to require the use of "best available science" appears reasonably related to the
critical areas intended to be protected, namely May Creek and Lake Washington. The subject site
will be developed with large parking areas and landscaping. The parking areas will collect
contaminants from automobiles including oils, solvents, gasoline and anti -freeze and road grime.
The landscaping will more than likely be treated with fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
Stormwater will capture these various contaminants. The site's stormwater runoff will feed a
ditch that almost immediately feeds into May Creek which then almost as quickly empties into
Lake Washington. Both May Creek and Lake Washington are shorelines and waters of statewide
significance. They are also critical areas. RCW 36.70A.172 provides the following language:
"Critical areas — Designation and protection— Best available science to
be used.
( 1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties
and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies
and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical
areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to
conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance
anadromous fisheries."
The standards already exist in state law and should be used to protect both May Creek and Lake
Washington. The standards imposed in this decision are no more uncertain than they are in state
law.
In conclusion, Condition 410 will be modified. The full list of conditions made a part of the
decision are found below.
"DECISION.•
The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape
architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other
similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit.
2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The
revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit.
3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating
compliance with RMC 4-4-080.I.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit
4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall he completed prior to Certificate of Final
Occupancy.
5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented faVade.
The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and
Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building
permit approval.
6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian path ways
through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving
prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall he reviewed and approved by the
Department of Community and Economic Development project manager.
7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to lite City of Renton Current
Planning Project Manager indicating 12 foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -foot wide
landscape strip along the frontage of the .3.07 acres of III development site, prior to
construction permit approval.
S. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides far
public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current
Planning Project Manager for review and approval tit the time of building permit
review.
9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying
it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including
water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution
entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May
Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved
or treated landscaping areas.
10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping, even temporary Iandscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to
screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east of the
parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along
lite remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then the applicant shall plant
such trees at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage. "
This office recognizes that appeals of the underlying decision have already been filed. This
decision may change one or more of those appeals or appeal issues. The parties may appeal this
decision within 14 days of this new decision
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner
Denis Law, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
201
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY OF RENTON
SES' 24 200
RECEIVED
C:!-rY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeal of }
}
SEGB, a Washington non-profit }
Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an }
individual and citizen of Renton, }
Petitioners, }
Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M,
SA -H
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I. AGREED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
The parties have conferred, and agree that any response shall be due by 5 p.m. on
October 1, 2009, and any reply due by 5 p.m. on October 5, 2009.
II. MOTION
South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) move the Examiner to
reconsider his decision denying the Appeal of SEPA Detennination, and approving the
Master Site Plan and Site Plan in this matter based on new information regarding water
flow on the subject property. This new information was uncovered as a result of testimony
from the applicant and city staff at the hearing, and subsequent investigation, and was not
reasonably available before the hearing. Because the site's design will concentrate all or
virtually all of the site's surface water into a ditch, and int'Onnation presented at the bearing
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206)621-8868
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Fax: (206} 621-0512
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and investigated by Appellant's expert after the hearing indicates that the ditch is an
infiltration feature, the Examiner's decision is based on an error of fact. Moreover, the
Examiner erred in law, with or without the new information, and erred in judgment in
limiting stormwater treatment options to dumping water in to a ditch that fails to convey
water offsite.
III. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
- The September 23, 2009 Second Declaration of Joel Massman (Second Massman
Dec.) (attached).
- The files, pleadings, and evidence presented at the hearing in this matter.
IV. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1. The Hearing Examiner erred in finding as a matter of fact that:
Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed
to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site.
The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the
phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning,
infiltration will not follow treatment. The stormwater will be
collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage
ditch. It will not be left to percolate in to the underlying
Soils.
HE Decision at p. 17, � 6.
2. The Examiner erred in law by finding that:
The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC
erred. The decision below is not clearly erroneous and the
decision below should be affirmed.
HE Decision at p. 17, ¶ 6.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: 1206) 621-0512
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
1$'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
}p8
2
3, The Examiner erred in concluding as a matter of law that the ERC did not err
in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from
contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, ¶ 6.
4. The Examiner erred in judgment by approving the Master Site Plan and Site
Plan with the following condition:
The applicant shall use best available science in treating
stonnwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch.
Decision at p. 25, 1110.
V. ARGUMENT
A. Standard for Reconsideration
RMC 4-8-100(G) provides for reconsideration:
Any interested person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is based on an 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 application for review by the Examiner
within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the
Examiner has been rendered.
1. The Decision rests on an error of fact.
At the hearing, Appellant SEG13 presented expert testimony regarding potential
groundwater infiltration on the site based upon the Applicant's description of its proposal
in the application materials, which appeared to indicate that a significant portion of the site
would be left as either bare earth or hydroseeded. Tile Applicant responded at the hearing
by clarifying its plan, stating that it intended to leave the impervious surfaces throughout
the site either intact or replace them with new impervious surfaces. The Applicant stated
that it intended to grade the development area and route all water flow to a "rain garden,"
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101f
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206} 621-8868
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fax: (206) 621-0512
I
1
2
3
4
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with water then flowing to a drainage ditch. New information presented at the hearing
included a drawing of the "rain garden," which had an impermeable liner, meaning that no
infiltration would occur onsite. This "rain garden" is simply a conveyance measure, not a
treatment measure. Second Massman Dec. at �j 1-3.
At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that the flow of water would be through the
ditch and to May Creek. Although not reflected in the summary of testimony, City staff
testified that the ditch had standing water and "orange scum" in it, and that City staff had
difficulty or were unable to maintain it. A site visit by hydrogeologist Joel Massman
revealed that there is water standing in the ditch, even though this is dry weather. Second
Massman Dec. at 16. The design of the ditch includes a higher inlet elevation than the
culvert, meaning that water flowing into the ditch will stand in a pond, rather than flow to
May Creek. Id, Dr. Massman notes that:
A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is
currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into
the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek.
Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this
ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to
assume that the goundwater recharge from this ditch is
significant.
Second Massman Dec. at 117 (emphasis added). As the Examiner correctly found,
the City must conduct an FIS if there are probable significant adverse environmental
impacts. Decision at p. 17, ¶ 4. The Examiner correctly noted that uncontroverted
testimony established that groundwater flows from the development site to Quendall
Ten-nmals, and conveys pollutants to Lake Washington, Decision at p. 15, ¶ 14; Second
Massman Dec. at � 11. The new information from the Applicant that all stormwater will
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1011
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: {2061621-8868
Far: (208) 521-0512
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
flow to the ditch, and from the City and Joel Massman that the Glitch ponds, and thence
infiltrates the ground, means that the same arguments raised regarding increased penneable
surface apply to the use of a ditch that serves as an infiltration feature. Second Massman
Dec. The appeal should be granted and an EIS must be ordered.
2. Den3�ng the SEPA appeal rested on an error of law.
In addition to the new information regarding groundwater infiltration, the
Examiner's decision should be reversed because it rests on an error of law. The Examiner
concluded that the ERC did not err in its review of the DNS because the project "will not
exacerbate pollutants leaching from contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17,
� 6. But SEPA does not require that a project exacerbate environmental issues. The
threshold determination for an EIS is whether the development proposal is "likely to have
probable significant adverse environmental impacts." RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); RCW
43.21C.031; WAC 197-11-360. That the proposal causes new impacts is not dispositive of
whether an EIS is required; nor is it necessary that the proposal increase environmental
impacts. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979).
In ASARCO, a smelter requested a variance that would allow it to continue operating. The
court held that even though there was no change in the status quo of pollutants emitted, the
action still required an EIS. As the ASARCO court noted, SEPA "aims not only to prevent
further environmental degradation but to reverse, where possible, ecological damage
already done-" Id.
In this case, uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that groundwater flow carries
toxins from Port Quendall into Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, J¶ 10-11. Infiltration
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
GENaLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101!
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206( 621-0512
f
1
2
3
4
5
6i
7i,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
from the site will maintain or increase groundwater flow. Decision at p. 14, � 15. Because
the ditch does not convey all water offsite, but instead allows infiltration, the ongoing harm
of toxin flow via groundwater provided from the site will be continued. Like ASARCO, an
EIS is required to study the impacts and evaluate alternatives.
An EIS would provide substantial information to the decisionmaker on how best to
handle the project's impacts on the adjacent Superfund site. Unlike a threshold
determination, an EIS requires consideration of alternatives. There are numerous options
available for how storinwater is handled on the project. Some options, like the use of the
infiltrating ditch, increase or at best maintain the flow of groundwater to Quendall
Terminals. Another option, the BAS option, would be to channel the water the other way,
towards May Creek, and thence to an infiltration feature on the other side of the property.
Second Massman Dec. at 7 11-12, An EIS would quantify the impacts of the project as
submitted, a no -action alternative, and other means of handling stonnwater, and allow
Renton to make an informed decision on whether to allow this project as proposed or
require stormwater management more tailored to the unique circumstances of the site.
3. The Examiner erred in ordering that water be dumped in the ditch.
The Examiner ordered that "[t]hc applicant shall use best available science in
treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch." Decision at p. 25, T 9. But
the new information regarding the infiltration of water from the ditch means that this
condition will not prevent pollutants from entering Lake Washington. As Dr. Massman
opines, the Best Available Science for handling stormwater on the site is not to use the
ditch:
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
GENTLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101E
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: {2061621-8868
Fax: t206) 62141512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an
infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the
7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of
contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site.
Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve
stream flow in May Creek.
A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site
would represent the best available science in terms of
reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal
site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing
roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flour to May
Creek.
Second Massman Dec, at �T 11-12. While undoubtedly well-intentioned, the
Examiner's decision thus improperly limits the stormwater treatment options to a system
that makes no sense, given the unique topography of the site and the presence of Quendall
Terminals downslope from a "ditch" that actually serves as an infiltration pond.
Dated this 24th day of September, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
By
Keith P. Scully
WSBA No. 28677
Attorneys for Appellants
\South End Gives Back(Deny,NMotion for Reconsideuation FINAL 9 24 09
MO'T'ION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7
GENTLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101'
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (2061 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows:
1. I am a civil engineer and have been retained by Brad Nicholson and South End
Gives Back to assist in addressing stormwater and other site development issues related to the
proposed land use at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard.
2. I provided a previous declaration related to this project dated July 17, 2009.
3. My educational and work experiences are described in Items 1 through 3 in my
First Declaration, dated July 17, 2009.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Dated this 22"' day of September 2009,
Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E.
I have reviewed the Report and Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton dated September 10, 2009. This document includes minutes from the August 25, 2009
hearing held in the Council Chambers of the Renton City Mall. These minutes include the
following information that was not previously provided to me:
i. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition.
There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area
related to the hotel development.
2. The rain gardens that have been proposed as a component of the stormwater plan for the
site will be lined and will not be used to infiltrate storm water.
3. The applicant states that rain gardens are required, "per the King County Manual," to
treat storm water from pollution generating impervious surfaces.
Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of the September
10, 2009 Report and Decision and on my review of documents identified in my first declaration
dated July 176, 2009 include the following;
Rain gardens are listed in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as flow
control best management practices (BMP's). They are not listed as a water quality
treatment BMP or option.
2. The efficacy of rain gardens as a water quality treatment technology has not been
evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual.
3. The efficacy of rain gardens that are lined with impermeable liners has not been
evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual.
4. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with
warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent
of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces.
5. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface
to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation and runoff from impervious
surfaces, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces at
the site may be in the range of 20 to 25 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an
average runoff of 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day.
6. Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington
Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. Based on
information included in the April 28, 2009 report prepared by Sound Development Group
LLC entitled "Technical Information Report for HavtiV s Landing Crown Plaza Hotel,"
The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no
precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation
than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the
ditch.
W
7. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside
ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek.
Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been
developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this
ditch is significant.
8. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to
Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site,
hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels.
Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals
site located between the project site and Lake Washington.
9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout
the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants
are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in
this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and
groundwater at the Quendall Tenninals site have been detected in the surface water along
the shoreline of Lake Washington.
10. Groundwater recharge from the existing roadside ditch likely contributes to the rate of
contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This
conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall
Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site.
11. Directing the stonxiwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility
constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact
in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater
recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek.
12. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best
available science in teens of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Tenninal
site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of
improving base flow to May Creek.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeal of
SEGB, a Washington non-profit
Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an
individual and citizen of Renton,
Petitioners,
Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M,
SA -H
DECLARATION OF KEITH P.
SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
1, KEITH P. SCULLY, declare as follows:
I. I am an attorney with the law firm of Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for
petitioners/appellants SEGB and Brad Nicholson in the above -captioned action. I make
this declaration in order to satisfy the requirements of GR 17(a)(2).
2. The document to be filed is the Second Declaration of Joel Massman.
3. I have examined the document, determined that it consists of five (5) pages,
including this declaration and excluding exhibits, and that it is complete and legible.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DECLARATION OF KEITH 1'. SCULL' REGARDING
FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - 1
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1474 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206)621-8868
Fax: 12061 621-0512
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 24th day of September, 2009, at Seattle, Washington,
KEITH P. SCULLY, WSBA No. 28677
\South End Gives ➢ack(Den)\Dec Scully FAX 9 24 09
DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING
FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - 2
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Phan@- 12061 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeal of
SEGB, a Washington non-profit
Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an
individual and citizen of Renton,
Petitioners,
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
COUNTY OF KING )
} Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M,
} SA -H
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
)
ss.
1, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, declare as follows:
I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for
appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the
Motion for Reconsideration, and Second Declaration of Joel Massinan to be served on:
DECLARATION OI' SERVICE - I
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98109
Phone! (206) 621-8868
Fax: 1206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
10
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ann Nielsen
Renton City Attorney
Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S.
100 South 2nd Street
P.O. Box 626
Renton, WA 98057-0626
[ ] By United States Mail
[x] By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
[x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy),
anielsen cr?rentonwa..gov
Jessica Clawson
McCullougli Hill, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
[ ] By United States Mail
[x] By Legal Messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail
[x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy),
j essi tach )mh se attl e. com
DATED this 21 day of �, 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington.
TA COAKL
South End Gives Back(Den)\Dec sm
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 10 15
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone:
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Fax: 12066621 0512
rnessenceaserzvrce
FIRM NAME PHONE EXT.# EMAIL (SECRETARY)
LAST DAY
Gendler & Mann, LLP 621.8868 , 850 florit_a@gendlermann.com
DATFJTIME
ADDRESS ATTY SECRETARY
SEATTLE
TACOMA
BELLEVUE
EVERETT OLYMPIA
In the Matter of the Appeat of South End Gives Back 103142
910 5TH AVE.
943 TACOMA AVE. SO.
10655 NF 41h
2927 ROCKEFELLER 119 W LEGION WAY
rDOCUMENTS _
Fee (check); Cover Letter; Notice of Appeal to the Renton City Council; Statement of Errose and Request for Relief
SEATTLE, WA 98104
TACOMA, WA 98402
Suite L101
EVERETT, WA 98201 OLYMPIA, WA 98501
3
00 G> l E G A. L 5 E R V E C E 5
P}i_ 206-623-8771
20fi-682.1675
PH: 253-383-1791
1-1300-3133-1791
BELLEVUE, WA 913004
PH: 425-455-0102
PH: 425-258.4591 PH: 360-154-6595
1-804-869-7785 1.800-828-0199
abclegaLcom
1-600.736.7295
FAX: 253-272-9359
FAX: 425-055-3153
FAX: 425-252-9322 FAX: 360.357-3302
4
i
FAX; 206-625-9247
tac@abciegal.com
bel@abclegal.com
eve(pabclegal.com oly@abclegaLcom
..._
STATE SEC
LJP STATE
SCOUR7REME
COURT
J
—mffi.hcleoal corn
Hsec lac CIVILaannta�wrcv
ORP.
LL
rnessenceaserzvrce
FIRM NAME PHONE EXT.# EMAIL (SECRETARY)
LAST DAY
Gendler & Mann, LLP 621.8868 , 850 florit_a@gendlermann.com
DATFJTIME
ADDRESS ATTY SECRETARY
9124109
1424 Fourth Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle WA 98141 KPS 1 Florita
CASs= NAME YOUR ABC ACCT. NO
In the Matter of the Appeat of South End Gives Back 103142
by 4:30 p.m.
E NO-(CS,
INT RArR # g�q
qua
o9 060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H 2009
rDOCUMENTS _
Fee (check); Cover Letter; Notice of Appeal to the Renton City Council; Statement of Errose and Request for Relief
_Appeal
`
SIGNATURE ELE RIGINAL
RE CONFORMED
COPYRN
ABC SLP ONLYCOPY
ON DOCUMENTS ABC DONFOT FI
OTHER INSTRUCTIONS
I Clerk
3
City of Renton CITY OF RENTON
1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor
_"
Renton, WA 98057 SEP 2 4 2009
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
2
4
i
SUPERIOR
Z COUNTY
DISTRICT COURT (INDICATE
APPEALS FEDERAL COURT
AUDITOR SEA TAC
..._
STATE SEC
LJP STATE
SCOUR7REME
COURT
J
DISTRICT)
Hsec lac CIVILaannta�wrcv
ORP.
LL
�
THIS FORM NOT FOR PROCESS
ABC Legal Services, Inc. (ABC) assumes n0 liability for errors caused in whole or in part by the improper filling out of this messenger service request form, including but not limited to, omission of a
last day dateltime, filings not marked in the proper and designated filing boxes, illegible print or script, etc. All messenger requests are double-checked for accuracy and completion prior to returning
to the requestor, however; it is the responsibility of the requestor to also check the completed request form for accuracy and to notify LS immediately if there are any questions or discrepancies.
Usage of this form constitutes a contract between the requestor and ABC and acknowledgment and acceptance by the requestor of the temp set forth above.
ABC Legal Services ABCSIip 3.0
70.
C`
V❑
C)Co
CD
MCCULLOUGLi HILL, rs
September 24, 2009 01TY OF PENTON,
Renton City Clerk
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RI_;: :applicant's appeal to City Council/tcqucst for reconsideration
LLT: -09-060, ECI{, SA-.Nl, SA -H
Hawk's Landing Hotel
Dear Ci"- Clerk:
SEP 2 4 2009
CITY Cl_EREKI S OFFICE
Enclosed with this letter is a request for reconsideration, as well as an appeal to City Council, along
with the $75.00 appeal fee, for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. We are simultaneously filing the request
for reconsideration and the appeal to City Council, because the Renton Municipal Code is not clear
as to whether filing a request for reconsideration tolls the time period for filing an appeal to the City-
Council.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely-,
1
Jes. ` a II1. Clawson
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattlexom
MCCULLOUGH HILL, Ps
CITY OF RENTON
September 24, 2009 SEP 2 4 2009
CITY CLERKSFOFFICE
The Honorable Fred J. Kaufman
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Applicant's request for reconsideration
LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H
Hawk's Landing Hotel
Dear Mr. Examiner:
We are writing on behalf of.the applicant for Hawk's Landing Hotel to respectfully request
reconsideration of two conditions placed on the Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review approvals
granted by you on September 10, 2009. RMC 4-5-100 allows an interested person to make a written
application for reconsideration of the Examiner's decision when the person feels that the decision is
based on an 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.
The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of
an error of law, fact, and judgment.
The applicant requests reconsideration of the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10:
Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining
site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage
should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with
some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the
site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional
street trees along the retnaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and
species as on the north frontage."
Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.8123388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattie.com
Page 2of5
remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted
along the north frontage."
The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and this condition because:
• The applicant is already significantly improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it.
See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration
and blight that the current site represents." The property to which this condition applies lies
outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the
applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, this condition
is not within the scope of the application and may not properly be imposed under this
application. When the applicant proposes development in this portion of the site as part of
a site plan and master site plan approval for the remainder of the larger property, street trees
would be required by code. In addition, requiring street trees along Lake Washington
Boulevard when there is no plan for redevelopment may interfere with the future
redevelopment of this portion of the site—trees may need to be removed or relocated in
order to accommodate the future development (construction access, sidewalks, driveways,
etc.).
• The City of Renton has received an appropriation from the State of Washington for
improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard associated with the redevelopment of the
entire area (including the Hawk's Landing site, the Barbee Mills site, the Quendall Terminals
site, and the Seahawks site). These facts were not reasonably available at the time of hearing
as the appropriation was still in process at the time. It is our understanding that the
appropriation includes funds for street trees and other street improvements on the southern
portion of the Hawk's Landing site. As the City has already taken responsibility for this
improvement, the improvement cannot be part of this approval.
The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10
should be revised to read:
Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject
site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining
site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. ,
The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a
much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current
proposal This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that
accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan
application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or
breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the
parking areas. _ ,
fiefth Future redevelol2tnent of the southern portion of the site not ra osed for
development with this apL!lication will require consistency with City of Renton landscaping
requirements including the planting of street trees."
Page 3 of 5
Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional
landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary
landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the
background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additiona
�.aarrr�n�rE�ss*!�!�!wr�- - - ..ee�±�.�..�•..�_..�r*�.���e..�
The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding stormwater were a result of
an error of law, fact and judgment.
The applicant requests reconsideration and clarification of the following portions of Conclusion 5
and Condition 9:
Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should
use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch.
There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created
or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas."
Condition 9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before
conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means
including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution
entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek
and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated
landscaping areas."
The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and condition because:
• The City of Renton has not adopted "best available science" as a standard for stormwater
treatment. The Hearing Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a
standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stormwater, which includes the use of "best
management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standards, including
the use of best management practices in its stormwater system design. The City of Renton
has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance with the manual is
sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted
standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake
Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping
S]
areas_
• The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own findings of fact, does not support
this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site
Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to
comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to
May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12—no evidence was submitted
into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the
Page 4of5
use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that "The proposal will not be
exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into
Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations
regarding discharge from the subject site." (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). In addition, the
Hearing Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the stormwater "will not travel
the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants
leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake." (SEPA Appeal, conclusion G). As such,
the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9.
• The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non -
regulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality (i.e., that the "development shall not
jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this
site's paved or treated landscaping areas").. No impacts are shown to warrant such a new
standard, and the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to create or impose such a
standard in the absence of such impacts. The law presumes that compliance with the City's
applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwater quality, so
this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's
intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from the City's
stormwater regulations, so we are seeking reconsideration and clarification of this issue.
The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9
should be revised to read:
Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by
whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant must
coM121with the C4 of Renton's standards re rdin stormwater the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manual). There is no evidence in the record that would sugpestMa
Creek or Lake Washing -ton would be �eo ardized as a result of the application. Tike
it te) the
Condition 9: "The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside
ditch. ,
ae�ejy6etr,-or- raia g eft" f�atttte ifferdefto reduee - fing the _.__
a,
Schedule for response.
We understand that the other party involved with this matter, Brad Nicholson, may respond to our
request for cl.ari_fication. We have spoken with Mr. Nicholson's attorney, Keith Scully, and have
settled upon the following response schedule:
Page 5 of 5
Response due: September 30
Reply due: October 5
We hope that this schedule is acceptable to the Hearing Examiner. We appreciate the opportunity
to provide this request for reconsideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions
or requests for additional information.
Sincerely,
dk
C. McCullough
cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney
Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson