Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Report 01 - 1 of 4
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 The Honorable Tanya Thorp SUPERIOR COURT IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY ROGER A. PAULSEN AND JASON M. PAULSEN, POA FOR JUDITH No. 14-2-31273-3 KNT PAULSEN, Petitioner, V. CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation, [PROPOSED-] ORDER AND JUDGMENT DENYING LUPA PETITION This matter comes before the Court on the November 17, 2014 Land Use Petition filed by Petitioners Roger A. Paulsen and Jason M. Paulsen, Power of Attorney for Judith Paulsen (hereinafter "Paulsen"), pursuant to Chapter 36.70CRCW, the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). The Court having reviewed the record, and considered the pleadings and files herein, including the following: 1. Paulsen's Opening Brief 2. PNW Holdings, LLC's Response Brief 3. The City of Renton's Response Brief 4. Paulsen's Reply Brief ORDER AND JUDGMENT DENYING LUPA PETITION - 1 ORIGINAL Van Ness Feldman 719 second Avenue Suite 1150 scattic. WA 98109 {206) 623-9372 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The court having heard oral argument of the parties and being thus and otherwise I fully advised of the premises �hereof, 11�� IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, JUDGED,, A��CREED at: lel, 1. The LUPA Petition is DENIED, and the City's decisions shall be and hereby are AFFIRMED. Paulsen failed to carry their burden of establishing that any of the LUPA standards set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1xa)-(fl were met as to any of the errors alleged 11 in the LUPA Petition. 2. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the City of Renton and against Petitioner Paulsen, consistent with this Order. DONE OPEN COURT•: of ayr, 2015 Presented by: VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP I By - Brent C n, WSBA #16240 Carly A. Summers, WSBA #42198 Attorneys for PNW Holdings, LLC Copy Received, trproved for Entry: Garmon News !n, r. Assistant City Attorney Attorney for the -My of Renton Van Ness ORDER AND JUDGMENT DENYING LUPA PETITION - 2 Feldman 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 61121 (206) 623-9372 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 I Copy Received, Approved for Entry: By: On be if of Petitioners ORDER AND JUDGMENT DENYING LUPA PETITION - 3 Effln" Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206} 673-9372 3 4 3 6 ill 1-� litf SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF' t'vASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 8 RO(;I- K A 1'.A(-.-, LSFN AND )ASON NA PAULSEN, 9 POA FOR D I T1 I N1 11A LS FN IQ 1'eutionEr., I-) CIT' OI~ REN'ION,,,iWashington Nlucu'clp,-,I Rcsponderir. No 1 KNT F -01k LAND LI -ISL", IIETITION 11�-IRS1_jANT TO I AND I SI; Pl-TITIONN ACT' t f : Itriumler has sr recd a11 acrion i -n rhe abovc Cour, rt!cjiesiirg reviev., of the land use decision 1.7 -1 - -) - -'i K AV I doted Ocwber 2014, pUrsuanr ro the land t1se 1'etjron AcT, Chal halt 30.1 .:.R(. . Pvt t3k)T1(!1's claim is stated M the written Putltion,a copyof,,vhich is sen ed upon.you %vith tl-Lls Summons'. YOU M,11,, but 11tCd nor, Cdt anansn--vr ru this I znd t Sc P(,t1tion Witlu"n fourtct!n 14 afar sm'lcc of the Petition on You, .you shall disclos . ro the L1ndVrST1]ed N!UriOflef the flAITIC 11f1d I address of an} person wlrorn you know coati Ix Jaccciccl for just adjudication of the Petition. 1 lie 2 Pctitroner shall promprly namc and scrvc anti SuCll person whom the Petitioner agrees mat I)c 3 nccdcd For just ad'rudication. if such person is not names and served by Petitioner prior to the initial 4 hearing, failure to join persons needed frn just adjudit;ation Shrill be wamrcel unless you raise this istitic 5 by timely motion notccl to be heard at the initial hcarmq. G An inl,tiat hc..[ring wdl lac set ao sooner than thirty fn c 35) days and no latct than #iftt (50 7 dais after the Petition is screed on the panics. S If you wish to scck the adt ice of an attornct on dill, nrattcc, ti1011 should do so Prompth S(.) 9 that any written response may be scr-cd on time. 10 1"Iris Summons is issued pursuant to Mule 4 of the �uperior Court Citi it Rules of the State of 11 Washington. 12 Datcd flus _ L_ da>, of Noti,cmbcr, 2014. 13 14 15 Kongcr V Paulsen 16 Pro Sc 17 GG 17 SI 3"' Place 18 Renton, W l 98059 19 (425) 228-15k39 litson R4_ Paulsen, PO 1 for Judith NI. Paukscn Pro Sc 31 M Tama Princs Lane \mania, %VA 98833 (509) 996 8 16 20 ItCi$;Ci;� �'1111SL7]:'(i-Lti.L_17111 ,1SMIN P',[ 1,11Wn f(i'. r,�n:lr1.CE)1Ti UNG COUNTY SUFEMOP COURT CASE. AS'S fCIN N LENT 1)FSIGitiAT-IO` ani CAST: 1=ATO R_NT AT10IN C0V7-R SHEFT (cies) In F wcarclauce wits LCRS 2 (e), a iau'.ty 3ocum--,at i..W of e 15 vAL. zje aSs'sse new c< ;e 'iLzs mziss-in ; rr_, s sheet pw�s�fj:a to King Courcy Corte 4A 630.060 CASE h2- rs,. : 14 - 2 _- 3 1 72 � ` KNE' CASE, CAPTMN: u} 4 =}i'_,5 i�ii� C.p �_nry �., C�1� h-�(=',', 1�r LI'i: : i rw-ti i tet cPse M. C:s tie cue asst. .tee r `. All of Kin_ COUaty 90 aaz i iaclu z a1 of r e, IntersrL 90 ri�Ft-af- vay; al; t1.v Chi s 01Seam,. `fiercer lslancL, BellevvP, issz is a� a 1 L o tl Eear]_ ?'gid a1 of ti' Shoe 2__d `. -ir- 1511ads AU of Karg County sour!, of i .t�!Fs±....; 90 ecce ;_ u,os : s incl. de 1 i ; `fie Seatti.- Calc A ssi %�. SIJtLIi� uL 1' t-iC� :er.�t 131n1i: I�alc f, CIgo8te GAii UI -LSV i0- t "ii c rone�/Piaiut.i:i 'ti'.' -SRA 1�t 11lTi eT KLNG C0 N I}' SLI'ilZ[C}R COUal. CASE ASSIGtiN,'Eti7 DESIGNATION and CASY, INFOhhLlTIO` COVER SriEET Pl sc c.:e k o e ca.Pgerp fat best describes this case 10: u Ge Un�� pu j,Ds s. ce,:,2Fn czse indexiognai auly 5,ive; tii_:e i ut 1=30 `r"c,-s i-- fol ec�;ti0g jud'icl j ICSOLrces_ i slr dDCX!Dent ier o: $ i 5 will be z_ssess.d to iicw :ase �ticgs = iss a Teas sht R1Lle 2 aid YiDg Coua y Code 4A530 060 AVOPTIONfPAKLYr,kGE to (°AT 5)' C �'iccgc to Denial ci Pzent::ge (TIAT 5)` Cc.- -d Interred Wy )DIS(' S) - 1;st2trlis:i Pzre�:ti✓g Ply Existm�; Kir.? Cut�r,ry Pa=erni[y Initi 1 i re Place?ieatRzpa:t (YP' 31 ivSadi carica -Support Calc �`��1DS 5)' j F�cn ge, L"s!an' stvDise ail sa (PAT 5), Y?"Gn�'Pc/=A(PI."Pi�)s ��� Rr_lc,�..�i•or. Ob=u.�un!".od hca-ior [{�3CD 5}` 1 cs.issio:r of Ac©wlr,rn: c i °z eat e ti r^ T 5)' Re:! Jo snip (T -LR 5; DD tIESTIC RF_f_k'1T0,lS atLmcrt vlir ty (LNM)' u=. '^ cepe3dent childmn? Y 1 N; a c pregr:2at" Y ( Id Comma tted DL -aa -r= Rzliit csiship Nli Ch!ldrej (Cis 3)' >7isscl_tiDn «:t� Chi)dre:� {L)lC 3',` Dissclutiuu ,Virg No wlf^. presnau t? Y / N Lnsorcement'S^c. r'._se- Out o`CD)wi-+3) Eszublis7Pzcrt�.gEi:a iac3D.;-sClRvitSC:sl3re: (PPS Est Ish Supper Orly (PPS 3}' it Legal Sena;:tioo (5wf' 3)` i[h d-per,ucni caildren? Y J J; uLe pre_na.ss? Y i 1% P.fa,d tnry Wage .A s: c t fM 'A 3) Nlod�fu ,cion (1,401) 3)' Mc,�catior - Sup; u:: (Dilly ('.'a)S 31z NolizurliLl CLstady (CUS 3), Out-Oi-5taln CllSrt]dy Ofdc; „GP'u'u aIlq ((l5C 3) 0u1-0L-`,1?te Support Cou:'. Ordcc Res erica (Pi'u 3) }tclacatia❑ Objerdenl"dodcSica'�?n (i+1QD 3j' 1FY :�L1It ViF.I}' DOh1ESTrC PAR"i'hF;SHIPS-PtiGTSiE? D r -d r:aistrz i:c *Wa• Re .c (i,LR 2,` Dissol Din eT Dol;:.^- ,:r.Pa e s ^ W-iy_h_ Chi! rl.fn (f) PC DO! Lz a ie Cor.se:it Tesi Rrft-5al CO:'{ RCC}' E 3issol:.t,a of I]: mcstic Fa asr..p Ali Cl" (DPN3)1 prcgr:ant? Y 1 N L v2lidii� r. jJOmCSt.0 Pa mnersiup CiNll 3), h — wi,h <lcpeud-z, t children? Y! N; Yrecman.% Y / N CC)7T.ACTrco`L1 8CLAi Legal Sepaa_iunoiDumcsticPztr�eiship(SP1)3)• i I B; z2- .: Df C:cla c_i (CO i 2)' Lh dcprr• _et cail3 en? Y i"; pub=tsnt? Y I N Ce n (COM 2)' TLE.,,T'}?;.11+TMARASSNIENT nr merti,•ln-Car."-�t(COL 2)' i70[>:S"lIC`rfG . ',:e of i Crrtin-c2 C "r �.d 0 -er ri D�lh Sc2��? fDr Ls -3=3C .� I cud p2l:v cull^coon , O! Z l 5eaar�.e)Ja-Coctaci Order pW�,.a�t to Civ` 9.9". X637 (H AR 2) C'-A±'n (Dvc 2) "S72l OTL� -r'_) o S cu 0?1, i C'. a S E A5S A JDGMENT Fo; nign Wil� 4) Judg7i-r,v, Sl . T cx, Aro� e oL Col 1,"-Y __q (TAX 2) li 4) PROPER FY KIGTFI"` 4, A-7,F6. US- J-U"' 2), TORT, ASB.F.S'J 0S Qu;: -1 Trl- (Q -11 .1m To R'r. I 17T; I ('A L MiA!. 2 [,-A C I I C E ETITI ON A i (VL F, ol ?MSC 2) Tt -j k T, N t C L o P. 1, l I nJ s . f z} 'L-jpe i L);�--o-uc Galy k7 2 NON 10 [ORVI F, Rtco;ds Ac; (PRA 21' 111 p 1 -z P—'`' 2 C c IF ,.-U:t IT a 2), C.7 v r.,- (S -2, "1 D— f f n i F R,-, 2.) na C V tl-j cl A 1 7 IN TFIE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUE STATE OF WAS"ING"TON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING ROGER & JASON PAULSFN NO. 14-2-31273-3 KNT POA FORJUDITK PAUI.SFN ORDER SFTTNG LAND USE CASE SCHEDULE Petitioner(s), vs. ASSIGNED JUDGE: Thorp, Tanya, Dept. 27 CITY OF RENTON FILED DATE: 11/17/2014 Respondents) TRIAL DATE: 4,120/2015 SCOMIS CODE: *ORSCS A Petition Seeking Review of a Land Use decision underthe Revised Code of Washinoton (RCW) 36.70C has been filed in the King Counry Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Pres idinsJudge. L NOTICES TBE PERSON (PETITIONER) SEEKING REVIEW OFA LA. -ND USE DECISION MUST: I File a Land Use Peliliun within the tune frames as instructed by applicable RCW 36.700.040. 2. Serve a copy of the Land Use Petition and this Order Setting Case Schedtde (Land Use Petition) (including these Notices) on all other parties to this action. You, as the person who started this Petition, must make sure the other person and/or agency is notified ofyouraction and gets a copy of the Schedule. See Revised Code of Washington RCW 36.70C.040(3). Your signature must appear on this form showing that you understand that you must make sure the other person and/or agency nets a copy of this form 3. Pay the statutory fining fee to the Clerk of the Superior Court in which the Petition is filed. NOTICE, TO A1,L PARTUS: All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the rules of the court -- especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for attorneys and parties to pursue their appeals vigorously from the day they are fled. All events must occur promptly. If they are late, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by the King Cotmn SirperiorCorrrt Local Rrile.s to schedule the petition fora dismissal hearing. "I understand that lam required to gibe a copy of these documents to all parties in this case." PRINK` NAME S[0i NAME L NOTICES (continued) STIPULATION/MOTION TO C'HAN'GE: SIAL IIEARU' G Parties may fide a stipulation or any party may fde a motion to change the initial hearing prior to the deadline as shown on the Schedule. A copy ofthestipulation ormotion must be filed with theassignedlttdge- Preliminary hearings must beset on Fridays. Stipulated change of hearing dates must be within h/- 7 days of the original date and must be approved by the assigned judge. MOTIONS ON JIiRLSDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUE'S: Motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues shall conTly with Civil Rule 7 and fins County Local Rule 7, except that the minimum notice ofhearing requirement shall be 9 days. PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVL THE CASL- When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all clainis is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the ass ignedjudge,all pending due dates in this Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to 1) file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution ofthe case, and 2) strike any pending motions by notifying the baUiffofthe assignedjudge. Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLCR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a final decree, judgment or order ofdismissal ofall claima is not filed by 45 days after a Notice of Settlement, the case rmy be dismissed with notice. If you ntiss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCIER 41(h)(2)(A) to present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date. NOTICIN OF APPLAI;NNCE ORWT144DRAWAL AND ADDRESS CIIANGES: ,911 parties to this artier+ must keep rhe court informed nftheir acldres.re.s. When a Notice of Appearance./WithdmwaI or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy. NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FES: ALL parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4A.630,020 whenever the Superior Court Clerk must send notice ofnon-compliance cf schedule requirements as per Local Rule 4 and/or dismissal ofactions as per Local Rule 4[. king County Local Rules areavailable for %iening at �r�ti�+:kinQ,rnunt�-oo+/courts/clerk- U. CASE SCHEDULE The v indi=es a dwument that must be filed with the Superior Court Clerl; s Office by the due shown HL ORDER Pursuant to King County Local Rule 4 (KCLCR 4), it is ORDERED that all parties involved in this action shall comply with the schedule listed above and that failure to meet these event dates will result in the dismissal of the appeal. It is FURIHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Land Use Petition CaseSchedide and attachment on all otherparties. -41 DATED- 11/17/2014 PRES13NNG JUDGE CASE EVENTS__ _ DATE r' Petition for Review of Land Use Decision Filed and Schedule Issued [See RCW 36.70C.Cd0]_. __ 11/17/2014 DFADLIINE to Contact Assigned Judge to Confirm initial Hearing [See RCW 36.700.080] 11/24/2014 DEADLINE to Stipulate or File a Motion for Change of Hearing Date or Adjustment of Schedule SeeROV 36.70C.080(1); RCkV36.70-0902/ . 12/15/2014 Initial Hearing on Jurisdictional and Preliminary Matters(FR@AYS ONLl) [See ROP, 36.700.080} , 1/912035 �I DiADLLNE for Fkiiz Certified Copy ofthe Local Jurisdiction Record ISee RCW 36.70C.I10 . VIW2015 D£ADLIYE for Ming Brief of Petitioner See RC3V36.70C.080(!) . 3/16/2015 DEADLINE for fling Brief of Respondent fSee RCW 36.70C.080(4)1. 4/612015 DEADLINE for filing Re 1 y Briefs See RC3V 36.70C.080(4)). 4/13/2015 Review Hearing/Trial Date See RCIV 36,70C.090). 4/20/2015 The v indi=es a dwument that must be filed with the Superior Court Clerl; s Office by the due shown HL ORDER Pursuant to King County Local Rule 4 (KCLCR 4), it is ORDERED that all parties involved in this action shall comply with the schedule listed above and that failure to meet these event dates will result in the dismissal of the appeal. It is FURIHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Land Use Petition CaseSchedide and attachment on all otherparties. -41 DATED- 11/17/2014 PRES13NNG JUDGE IV. ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEFDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE READ THIS ORDER BEFORE CONTACTING YOLK ASSIGNED JUDGE This case is ass igned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this case schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case for all pretrial rMiters. CO1NLP1,LX LITIGATION: if you anticipate an unusually conrpiex or lengthy trial, please notify the assigned court as soon as possible. APPLICABLE. RULES: I wept as specifically modified below, all the provisions of King County Local Civil Rules 4 through 26 shall apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges. The local civil rules can be found at hupJ/www.leinocountv,_Dov!caurtslsuReriorcourt/civil,as�.x' . CASE SCHEDULE A.ND REQULRI N1ENTS: Deadlines are set by the case schedule, issued pursuant to Local Civil Rule 4. ITS: PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR h`NOWING AND COMPLYING WI`YH ALL DEADLINES IIIPOS® BYTTIE COURT'S LOCAL CIVIL RULES. A. Joint Confirmation regarding Trial Readiness Report: No later than twenty one(21) days before the trial date, parties shall cornplete and file (with a copy to the assigned judge) a joint confirmation report setting forth whether a jury denxrnd has been filed, the effected duration of the trial, whether a settlement conference has been held, and special problems and needs (e.g. interpreters, equipment, etc.). The form is available at If parties wish to requesta CR 16 conference, they must contact the ass ignedcourt . Plaintiffs/petitioner's counsel is responsible for contacting the ether parties reguardino said report. B. SettlemenUlMediationlADR a. Forty five (45) days before the trial elate, counsel for plaintildJpetitioner shall subrnit a vv.-itten settlement denand. Ten (10) days after receiving plainti€fslpetitioner's written demand, counsel for defendantrrespondentshall respond (with a counter offer, if appropriate). b. Twenty eight (28) day's before the trial date, a Settlement/Mediation/ADR conference shall have been held. FAILURE TO C011,1 PLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFELYNCE RF-Q1.rUU7v1 WF IMAY REWLT IN SANCTIONS. C. Trial: Trial is scheduled for 9:00 a.rn on the date on the case schedule or as soon thereafter as convened by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Court website http'l/ulvvv.kinvcounfy. ov,`courtslSuperi0rcourt.asps to contimi. trial judge assignment. tnfom-iation can also be obtained by calling (206) 205-5984. MOT -IONS PROCEDURES A. Noting of Motions Dispositive Motions: All suirunaryjudge- ni orotherdispositivemotions will bvheard with oral argument before the a.ssignedjudge. The moving party must arrange with the hearing judge a dateand time ler the hearing. consistent with the court rules. Local Civil Rule 7 and Local Civil Rule 56 govern procedures for summary judgment or other nsotions that dispose of the case in whole or in part, The local civil rules can be found at http:!lvv�vvv.kirgcountv��ov/cyurtsls�periarcaurticivil.as��. Non -dispositive Motions: These motions, which inciude discoverymotions, will be ruled on by the assigncdjudge without ural argument, unless otherwise ordered. 111 such motions must be noted fora date by which the ruling is requested; this date roust likewise conform to the applicable notice requirements. Rather than noting a time afday, the Note for Motion should state"Without Oral Argument." Local Civil Rule 7 governs these motions, which include discoverymotions. The local civil riles can be found at htt JAvlvw.kingcounty Q v/c un ! u eriarcou /civii.a px Motions in Famil►' tarw Cases not involving children: Discovery motions to compel, motions in iirrdne, motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacatejudgmentsldisrnissals shall be brought befrre the assi,ned judge All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions calendar. Local Civil Rule 7 and king County Family Law Local Rules govern these procedures. The local rules can be found at htrp://www kingcountvv.gov/courts/superiorcourtlCivil.aspti Emergency Motions. Under the court's local civil rules, emergency motions will be allowed only upon entryof an Order Shortening Time. Flowever, emergency discovery disputes maybe addressed by telephone call and without written notion, if the judge approves. B. Original DocumentsiWorking Copiesl Filing of Documents: All original documents must be filed Hith the Clerk's Office. Please see information on the Cleric's Office website at �v%"Y.kingcountv.gov/courts/cleric regarding the new requirement outl'uied in LGR 30 that attorneys must c-file documents in King County Superior Court. The exceptions to the a-filing requirement are also available on the Clerk's Office website. The working copies of all documents in support or oppos hion must be marked on the upperright comer ufthe first page with the date of consideration or hearing and the name of the assigned judge. The assigned judge's working copies must be delivered to his/her courtroom or the Judges'mailroortt Working copies ofrnotions to be heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator. On June t, 2009 you will be able to submit working copies through the Clerk's office E-Filing application at www.kinbcountv.gov/courts/clerk. Service of documents: E-filed documents may be electronically served on parties who opt in to E-Service within the E- Filing application. The Flier must still serve any others who are entitled io service but who have not opted in. E-Service generates a record of service document that can be a-filed. Please see information on the Clerk's office website at wlvw.kingcountvvaovlcourts/cleric regarding E Service. Original Proposed Order: Each ofthe pa7ies must include an original proposed ordcr granting requested relief with the working copy materials submitted on any motion. Do not file the original ofthe proposed orderwith the Clerk of the Court. Should any party desire a copy ofthe orderas signed and filed by the judge, a pre-addressed, stamped envelope shall accompany the proposed order. Presentation of Orders. All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assignedjudge. Lf that judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. if another judge enters an order on the case, counsel is responsible for providing the ass ignedjndge with a copy. Proposed orders finalizing settlement anchor dismissal by agreement of all liarties shall be presented to the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department Formal proof in Family Law cases must be scheduled before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or formal proofmay be entered in the Fx Parte Department. If final order andlor formal proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department, counsel is responsible for protiiding the assigned Judge with a copy. C. Form Memorandalbriefs for matters heard by the assignedjudge may not exceed twenty four (24) pages for dispositive motions and twelve (12) pages for non-dispositive motions, unless the assigned judge permits over-length memoranda briefs in advance of filing. Over-length memoranda briefs and motions supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED. FAIL URF_ TO CO,fIPL Y WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER Af,4 Y RESUL T IN 9IS1JfISS.4L OR OTHER SANCTIONS PLA INTIFFIPEITITONER SHALL FOR (YARD A COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY 1VHO HAS NOT RECEIVED THIS ORDER. PRFSIDING JUDGE 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 6 FOR KING COUNTY S Roger A. Paulsen, and Jason M. Paulsen, 9 POA for Judith M. Paulsen, 10 Petitioner, II vs. 12 City of Renton, A Washington municipal 13 Corporation 1=I Resoondent. N(1 LAND USE PI.TI 1'IOti PURSU IN F TO ]_,1ND USI-' PlAt110NACT t 16 A. Name and mailing address of the petitioner(s). 17 1. Petitioner(s): Roger Paulsen, 6617 SE 5"` PI , Renton, VVA 98059 and Jason 15 Paulsen POA for Judith Paulsen, 31 Mazama Pines Lane, Mazama, WA 98833 19 S. Name and mailing address of the petitioner's attorney, if any; 20 1. NIA, Pro Se Petitioners LAND USF 11F,: FI ION FURS' J,,\Nl-TO � - f..AND USE PI✓i IT[01\T ,1C -I' 36 70(:.RC1V PAGE I i C. Name and mailing address of local jurisdiction whose land use decision is at 2 issue. 3 City of Renton 4 Attention.- City Clerk 5 1055 South Grady Way G Renton, WA 98057 r D. Decision-making body or officer and decision. b The decision-making body is the City of Renton City Council by way of their October 28, 9 2014 letter transmitting their written decision adopting the recommendation of the 10 Planning and Development Committee to affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision 11 with conditions on the preliminary plat of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. A copy of the 12 October 2Bth written decision letter, the October 27'h Recommendation and Hearing 13 Examiner's Final Decision, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration 1Y dated August 13, 2014 and the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated July 18, 2014, 15 collectively the "Decision", are attached as Exhibit A to this petition. 16 E. Identification of Parties. 17 1. Justin Lagers, PNW holdings, LLC, Applicant is 2. G. Richard Ouimet, Landowner 19 3. Sally Lou Nipert, Landowner 20 F. Facts demonstrating standing. 21 Petitioner Roger A. Paulsen and Petitioner Jason Paulsen POA for Judith M Paulsen 22 have standing to seek judicial review pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060(2) of the Land 23 Use Petition Act ("LUPA") as they are adversely affected by the decision. L U6 i'E i IION! P i L. y^ ti1;=l O i'r\ ( 1. -) I As adjacent landowners residing at 6617 SE 5'h Place, Renton, WA 98059 who have 2 a single point of access to the City of Renton street system by way of SE 5`h Place 3 and 156'x' Avenue SE, Petitioners are prejudiced by the decision to approve the 4 preliminary plat of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge. 3 Petitioners have asserted interests that are among those the City of Renton was G required to consider when it made the land use decision related to their health, safety and general welfare as it relates to the City's transportation system, as well as 8 their rights to an appeal before the City Council. 9 A judgment in favor of Petitioners, denying the preliminary plat or conditioning it such 10 that no new traffic impacts are added to the City of Renton transportation system 11 including the 1561" Ave SE/ SE 142"¢ intersection by the plat until such time as 12 adequate capacity is available to serve the development would substantially 13 eliminate or redress the prejudice caused or likely to be caused by the land use 14 decision. 15 Petitioners have exercised all appeal rights made available to them by the Renton 16 Municipal Code including the appeal resulting in the final decision of October 27, 1-1 2014 and therefore have exhausted all administrative remedies to the extent 18 required by law. 19 20 G. Statement of errors and supporting facts. 21 1. The city erred in issuing the October 28, 2914 affirmation of the Planning and 22 Development Committee's recommendation of the Hearing Examiner's Final 23 Decision with conditions because the city engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to 24 follow a prescribed process in the following ways: i A. The City's appeal process RMC 4-8-110 F provides that appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision are to be made to and heard by the City Council. By definition the City Council means all seven (7) members or a quorum thereof: ► `The City of Renton is a noncharter code city under the laws and statutes of the State, and its City Council shall consist of seven (7) 6 members who shall be elected at large." (Renton Municipal Code 7 Section 1-5-1(A). By neglecting a prescribed process, and by having the appeal heard by just two (2) members of the City Council (less than a quorum) acting as a further sub -set 1 r) of City Council members serving on the City's Planning and Development l i Committee, who deliberated in private and off the record, Petitioners were i? denied the City Council appeal opportunity intended by and set forth in the 1 Renton Municipal Code. 14 B_ The City further erred in issuing the October 27, 2014 affirmation of the I�) Planning and Development Committee's recommendation of the Hearing 16 Examiner's Final Decision with conditions because the city engaged in unlawful 17 procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process with respect to the City 15 Council's October 27, 2014 decision to amend the Hearing Examiner's decision, 19 City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-114(F)(7) clearly provides that any decision to amend the Hearing Examiner's decision is to be accompanied by a 1 finding that "a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record". 22 1 :13 t" i_, l�-11_I_l_1.. ,)N; I)i PsiiANr 1 1;.� In an apparent recognition of the transportation system deficiencies identified in the record, the City attempted to "split the baby" on this issue by both amending the Hearing Examiner's decision, and by making a finding that the Petitioner 4 failed to establish that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record," 5 The City's error in departing from its prescribed process in an apparent attempt G to craft a politically expedient solution to the concerns raised by Petitioner has further confused the City's decision and record, and reflects an unlawful S procedural error. tip 2. The city erred in issuing the October 28, 2014 affirmation of the Planning and t Development Committee's recommendation of the Hearing Examiner's Final 1� Decision with conditions because the city's decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, and/or is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts in the 1,t following ways. 15 A. The City has erred in that it has based its approval of the preliminary plat 16 upon a finding that satisfaction of the City's transportation concurrency test 17 requires the City to approve this subdivision without consideration of the Is other relevant intersection level or service data developed during SEPA 19 review and included as part of the record. The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more i specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City staff properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact, the City's own policy governing -'Y site-specific traffic analyses requires this type of Level of Service analysis. __ ....... _._ L:'•,NI) U IIC.TlTlt_ N P Ur R S U.AN I TCS Petitioner believes that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW j 58.17.110(2)(a) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment ? to have the traffic signal at the 156th/ 142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more site-specific G analysis in favor of the broader analysis, which has acknowledged deficiencies, defies common sense, 8 The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made .0 as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. i? Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the 13 proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision 1=4 requirements of RCW 58.17.110: 1 1) The City acknowledges that 156th Ave. SE I SE 142nd PL intersection I currently operates at a failing level --- LOS level °F"; 1 2) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 is average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle 19 trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection; ?0 3) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was 21 observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 2? 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a %3 distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL. %•1 / 156th Ave. SE intersection", L:'•,NI) U IIC.TlTlt_ N P Ur R S U.AN I TCS 4) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE 1 BE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an t acceptable level -- LOS level "C 5) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection, the r, City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal; 6) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees that any mitigation 9 imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. t 7 ) In the City's Planning and Development Committee October 271x' Recommendation, they conclude that: i "Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not + desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore; the PDC understands that traffic along 956`x' Ave SE is a problem now, 0 and will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. " The City has clearly identified on the record that there is not capacity for i additional traffic at the 156th Ave. BE l BE 142nd Pt- intersection. absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates financially this improvement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to I ensure that any intersection improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such 4 capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new 6 development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code, 9 In adopting a finding in their October 27" decision, the City Council concludes trl that the preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it: 1 1 "_..insures acceptable levels of access, public service, and promotes 1' the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060. A. 5.b and c " 13 This finding fails to find affirmatively that the preliminary plat satisfies the 14 requirements of RCW 58.17.110, nor that it is consistent with RMC 4-1- 1 _-) 060.A.5.h which purports - I () "To guide future development and growth in the City that is 1.f consistent with the goals and objectives of the Growth I ti Management Act as defined in RCW 36.70A.020, Planning 19 Goals. " ^t� RCW 36.70A.020 speaks to the goals of the Growth Management ? I Act by which the City is required to plan: "(12) Public facilities and services Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall I'i:"f711nN r1C'"1 3!i ri3("":1i-A' :'-A(;I:1, be adequate to serve the development at the time the 2. development is available for occupancy and use without 3 decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. " The record and facts above clearly show that the City has failed to masse and 6 support the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110, and has failed to properly interpret the law as it relates to ensuring appropriate provision of r services and ensuring the public interest as required by the Growth Management Act and the City's Municipal Code. B. The City erred in basing its approval upon an interpretation that compliance with RCW 58.17.110(2) is not required as part of plat approval. Specifically, the City's Decision as provided in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration states as follows: I "The RMC only requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for I approval of preliminary plat, not RCW 58.17.110(2)" (Page 3, Line 4 of I August 13, 2014 Final Decision on Reconsideration) I' The City's interpretation of RCW 58.17 is clearly an erroneous interpretation of I the law because RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that: "A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings than (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or 1 11'�',�;f.si 1 roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies: ? sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and 3 schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and 4 other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students 5 who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest G will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it 7 finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such 8 appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be 9 served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed 10 subdivision and dedication. " I t RCW 58.17.110 is clear in what it requires, and the City's finding that 12 their approval only need be consistent with the cited City Municipal 13 Code sections for preliminary plat which do not include the findings 14 required by RCW 58.17.110 is clearly an erroneous interpretation of the 15 law. 16 C. The city erred in basing its decision to approve the preliminary plat upon an 1. erroneous interpretation that it would likely face litigation by the applicant 18 claiming Fifth Amendment violations citing and relying upon Tahoe -Sierra 19 Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'] Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) for this 2�0 conclusion. The case cited does not support this erroneous interpretation, 21 and in fact, clearly provides for the City to exercise its authority in making 22 project specific land use decisions. Specifically, the Court found in Tahoe - 23 Sierra Pres, Council v. Tahoe Reg'I Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) 24 that: LAND USE PETITIOLN PURSUANT TO LAAND UISL PE—ITFION' ACT 3C}.70C.RCIV. PAGE 10 I "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or 3 whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use, we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims. Land -use regulations are G ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way --often in completely unanticipated ways. S Treating them all as per se takings would transform 9 government regulation into a luxury few governments could 1Q afford." t i D. The city erred in basing its decision to approve the preliminary plat upon an t erroneous interpretation that denial of the preliminary plat application was not an 13 option for the City because, as stated by the Hearing Examiner: 13 "As shall be explained, this puts the City in the position of either t 7 having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably 1 doesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating i the landowner for taking its property without just compensation in t "s violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is unlikely the state legislature t = intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110. " (Page 3, Lines 15-18 of August 13, 2014 Final Decision on Reconsideration) RCW 58.17.110 is clear in what it intends. Taken to its logical extreme, the City's reliance upon this interpretation to support approvaf of the preliminary plat i't.l'.- II. AA - would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. 3 3. The city erred in issuing the October 28, 2014 affirmation of the Planning and Development Committee's recommendation of the Hearing Examiner's Final D Decision with conditions because the land use decision is not supported by G evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court. Specifically, the City has failed to make and support affirmative findings that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat satisfies the requirements of RCW 101 58.17.110 with respect to appropriate provision for transportation facilities, and with I t respect to finding whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and 1 -) dedication. 13 In attempting to create an appearance of addressing or mitigating acknowledged t't deficiencies in the City's transportation system at the 156"' SEI 14211 d intersection, as 15 identified in the record, and in order to satisfy the appropriate provision standard of t6 RCW 58.17.110, the City has imposed two conditions of approval related to t . transportation. One is a contribution of funds from the applicant. The second is a I �, directive to City Staff to re -prioritize some undefined manner of improvement at the t`.) intersection. Neither of these conditions of approval actually guarantee any tangible .� improvement at the failing 1561h! 142"1 intersection prior to the contribution of new i traffic from the preliminary plat to the failing intersection. Additionally, one of the conditions of approval added by the City Council in their October 27, 2414 decision is so poorly drafted that its intent is indeterminable and cannot be relied upon as support for a finding of appropriate provision as required by RCW 58.17.110. The condition reads: "That the City Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156"r r Avenue SE/ SE 142'd intersection for installation as soon as 6 possible, and no less than 3 years after the completions of the 6 ;project "(Page 1, October 27, 2014 Planning and Development Committee Recommendation) 3 This condition is silent with respect to what it is the City Council is directing staff to reprioritize-, it imposes an apparent requirement that something be installed no less 1(i than (meaning no sooner than) three years after completion of the project,- and it t then faits to define what status of the project represents "completion of the project", 1? Additionally, the act of directing staff to change the rank of a project on a t prioritization list that apparently can be changed at the whim of the City Council 14 provides no certainty with respect to the installation of any physical improvement at i 5 the 156t" Avenue SE/ 5t` 142nd intersection in the future. The current City Council cannot bind future City Council's with respect to such legislative decisions, and even if they could, the effect of elevating the priority of an improvement at this intersection 1 is without any real effect. The condition is "hollow" in that it provides no tie to the impact of new traffic contributed by the preliminary plat. This condition, and its apparent intent to change City fiscal policy on a whim, is contradictory of, and directly unsupported by the City's decision wherein the Hearing Examiner concludes on this very issue that: P`....`k9' I "As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long terra 2 transportation planning and simply expend its limited funds on 3 transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid 4 denying a preliminary plat application. of course, such haphazard and 5 random fiscal planning would likely not result in a very efficient G expenditure of public funds. " (Page 4, Line 10, Final Decision on 7 Reconsideration, August 13, 2014) S H. Request for relief. 9 1. Petitioner(s) pray for the following relief 10 a. That the Court order the City of Renton to return to this Court certified copies of 1 t the record supporting the land use decision. 12 b. That upon return of the records set forth above, this Court review the full record 13 decision of the City; 14 c. That this Court enter a judgment declaring the City's land use decision as one 15 which failed to satisfy the procedural requirements of Renton Municipal Code 16 Section 4-8-110 Appeals; 17 d. That this Court enter a judgment declaring the City's land use decision as one l8 which failed to satisfy the requirements of RCW 56.17; i9 e. That this Court reverse the decision and order the City to deny the preliminary 20 plat or impose such measures as are necessary to ensure that the preliminary 2 i plat is not approved by the City until adequate infrastructure and capacity exists 22 at the 156« Avenue SE/ SE 142nd intersection to accommodate traffic from the ?3 preliminary plat; f. That this Court grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate_ Dated this 7 day of November, 2G14 } 4 Roger A. Paulsen, Petitioner 5 0 Pro Se 6517 SE 51h PI Renton, VVA 98059 11 (425) 228-1589 10 RoaerAPaufsen(c�cs.com 1" V. / f Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M Paulsen, Petitioner Pro Se 31 Mazama Pines Lane Mazama, VVA 98833 (509) 996-8160 JasoriMPaulsenCcDomail.com L7Q l City of, Ek � Maa yor 3 + 1 I � rlffi �v � � • I City Clerk - BonnieLWalton October 28, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr, Paulsen: At the regular Council meeting of October 27, 2014, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to affirm the Hearing Examiner's Fina{ Decision with conditions. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-430-6504. Sincerely, Pas. e hity Clerk Enc: P&D Committee Report cr: Mayer Denis Law Council President Don Persson Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Do)bee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building official Sabrina €wirante, Development Services Garmon Newson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, Applicant Parties of itecord 116) ia55 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430.6510i Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentona,a.gcv Pt.ANN1NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION October 27, 2014 Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA -14-000241 (October 23, 2014) ,P� OED By UN IL D� A The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM! the hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision_ln its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that o -ie of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 1561i"Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 3-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another. Tra`fic operating at L05 F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156''' Avenue 5E is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/Dr amount of traffic along 156 i Avenue SE, As a result, the PDC recommends the following; That the City Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156x" Avenue SE/SF 142"' Place intersection for instailation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision., page 16, lines 4-9, This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave pr6posai "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental) mpact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written . findings and found that this project was it the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Bearing Examiner's Final Decisioo shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1, One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Ladd Use Map and the proPertys R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable. levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest.in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.S,b and C. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as Follows: Page 21, line 21 shoufd be amended to change the word "County' to "Renton". The sentence will then read as "rhe primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued art MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental 'impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: " In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110,F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. y J BEd Prince, Chair Not in Attendance Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc Larry Warren Garman Newsom 11 C.E. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Briidla Ridge Decision —AUIRM 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 72 23 € 24 25 € k _6 BEFORE TITE HEARLNG EXA?1II1\`F.R FOR THE CITY OF RENI'O! RE, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preuminal-y Plat FCNAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Preliminary Platt and SEPA appeal LUA I4-404241 SUMMA RY The applicant requests preli-n i ary plat apps -G al for the subdivision of 8.8 acres alto 31 si-lele- farnily residential lots on the east side of 166th Avenue SE between SE 139" Place and SE 141" Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Deterrmination of Nonsignificance ('�lTYtiS") issued under the Washington State Er:vironrrtenU Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated vvitb the review of the preliminary plat. The prelirrrinary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration flied by Roger and .Indy Paulsen on July 30, 2014. atber than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical errors and adding some clarifications, the original July IS, 2C14 remains the sauce except for the added section entitled "Recons'Acratior, Response", which 10110 VS this "Sumrrtarv' section. The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable coaceru3 about traffic consestioa, but the _ontribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the pity Council. L.OS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of trafasc :ongestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates Ci. adopted :.OS. The City's unique, LOS is rot very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe -onsestion in souse areas so long as traffic tuns more smoothly at a more global level within the .;sty's transportation network. Nonetheless from a le�,'Ld standpoint the City's LOS is larvely the l'RE[.l �lT?�'ARY PLAT - 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 only standard that can be applied in Los case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20%, of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of art Unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposin; an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share irnprovements can be required of the applicant. In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expeaded in Eve years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in five years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessinu congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail i, -r Finding of Pact No. 4(E) of this decision. RECONSIDERATION REQUEST As pre%iously noted, Roder and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this "Reconsideration Request" section. Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration. His concerns have already been addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only he evident to an experienced planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms as possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that suffer from traffic congestion. Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration rcgucst provides ars opportunity to provide further clarity on the issue. heir. Paulsen's first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.I 10(2) prohibits the approval of a subdivision unless a city or county makes a finding that "appropriate'' provision is made for streets, roads, alleys, other public ways.._" This finding was made in three places in the Enclave decision. Finding of Fact N'o. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by "adequate" infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate hong this determination was made for specific types of infrastructure. Finding of Fact No. 4(E) elaborates how this ftndLng was trade for roads. Conclusion of Lav No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in response to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), which requires that subdivisions "[inlake adequate provision for .... streets, alleys, other public ways. PRE, LINIINARY PLAT - 2 tel 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 t 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 It could be argued that a finding of "adequate" public facilities is not the same as a finding of "appropriate" public facilities as required by RCW 58.17. t 10(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate sucb parsimonious word play. "Adequate" within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision review clearly encompasses the "appropriate" criterion of RCW 58.17.110(2). The intent of the City Council is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it. It can be presumed that the City Council intends to have its regulations interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law. The RMC only requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(1)(1). Consequently, to the extent possible, the subdivision criteria of the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.110 requirements in order to ensure that a subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly easy to apply this interpretation to RMC 4-7-080(8)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that provision is almost a direct quote from RC"' 58.17.110(2). The City Counci] clearly intended RMC 4- 7-080(B)(4) to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2). Conclusion of Lav No. 7 of the Enclave decision finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required finding of RCW 58.17.110(2) has also been made The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff, The original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged these problems and explained that the preliminary plat application still had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service standards. T1he decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any additional mitigation or deny the project on the basis of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request. In short, Mr. Paulsen wants a finding that the proposal will not be served by `appropriate" streets aecause the 156 Ave 5E/SE 142nd PI intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts :he City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably ioesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is unlikely that the state legislature ntended cities and counties to be put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.1!0. A far more -easonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted by the courts is to construe a road is "appropriate" for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require_ Requiring more than the tdopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City, which cannot be ignored because the city is required to frll in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be filled by developers. In this case, he road system meets the City's LOS, which is why roads were determined to be adequate. fhe reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because )f the strict rulings of state and federal courts in the application of the takings clause of the Fifth amendment, i.e. government cannot tale property without just compensation. There are two The refcreoecs to "adequate" in this decision will also be modified to include "appropriate" to remove any doubt n the issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make "o owth pay for grotitirth". The first linutation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark Counh 91 '4'tirn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant can only be made to pay for la% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection. So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection ,.appropriate" at its current LOS, as advocated by Mr. Paulsen: (1) the City can pay for the rernainin9 costs of the intersection improvements itself; or (2) it can deny the preliminary plat application. As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements v. -hen it becomes necessary to avoid denyin; a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would likely not result in a very• efficient expenditure of public funds The LOS standards required to be adopted by the Growth Management Act ("GMA") were designed to avoid tlxis randomized font of fiscal plarnning. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and 20 year geuerat budget that identifies wherr the City «•ill get the funds to ftnance the LOS it has adopted By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the GNIA essentially places cities and counties in the position of only adapting LOS standards they can afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for treasuring whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a proposed subdivision. The second course of action, denial, implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose development moratoria of unreasonable length. See Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v, Tahoe Reg'l Planning agency. 535 US 342 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or two mill be difficult to justify. As noted in Nor. Paulsen's reconsideration request, the City's funding priorities for the 156 Ave SEISE 142cd PI intersection suggest that needed improvements won't be constructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave SF/SE 142nd P1 intersection, the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to that intersection. "rhe applicant would be in a very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium. in understanding the use of LOS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context. Although the Renton LOS standard is somewhat unique in that it doesn't adopt the more traditional "ABCDEF" system of review, the Rentonn system isn't at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as adequate or appropriate. Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LOS of F for portions of their transportation system. Since GN1A requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances inhere a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street PRl✓LIt,MNARY PLA -1 - 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 71 22 23 24 25 26 segment above a failing level of service_ So even if Renton had adopted a letter system for its LOS, Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city. Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard is the best tool for assessing whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a development for purposes of subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by Mr. Paulsen would place the City in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn't have to upgrading all failing intersections for new development beyond the applicants' proportionate share, or paying the applicants mullions of dollars in taking claims. The LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its transportation system. It is the only practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner that recognizes that there is a limit to Trow much money is available to address the problem. TESTLMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that be is a principal engineer with TraffEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project, The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, One other potential option that hasn't bzeo ad ressed due to space limitations is to reduce the density of the )raposed subdivision. The R4 dcsigoation does not have a rninimum dcmity requirement. However. the GNLA 'equires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population projections and a city's zoning designations are Jesigned to accommcdare these numbers. Further, the GIv1A requires residential development Mthin cities to occur it "urban" densities which at a mini urn is usually four divclling units per acre. Routincly requiring reduced Jcmities to reduce traffic impacts would arguably violate these GNtA principals. Further, in this case the ntersection at issue is already operatin- at LOS F so that from the standpoint of "appropriate" roads it makes no mbstantial difference if the subdivision has a density of one unit per acre as opposed to four units per acre. PRELINITNARY PLAT - 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 37 23 24 25 26 attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has def"tned the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project, None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx to look at the txo site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection is a stop -controlled sigt intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the neo site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the neer project. TraflEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peal: hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intcrsection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pin peals hour is worse Lhan the am peak hour. After project completion, the 5E 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addzndum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peal in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. 'Re south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft. which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, tWs access area should not be affected. In retard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pin peak hour. Under cross -exainimtion by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Gegiia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen. 1n regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. GegUa noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. Mr. Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pin peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross exanunation by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geclia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by 1 fi Carson, Mr. Geclia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony PRrLfNf[NI ARY PLAT - 6 l0 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Gar -mon Newsom, Assistant Benton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulsen was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr_ Paulsen does not have standing to raise dais issue because he understood the process_ The city complied with altemative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Din;, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21)_ Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy me❑tions that it should inc€rude am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. AdditionaUy, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil. Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she, has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014_ The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts_ The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay_ With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 1)7 23 24 25 26 specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growrth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close -by. Under cross-examination by Mr_ Paulsen, his. hair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be required. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public cornmcnt was received after the close of the commcat period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the sipal was not linked to the project nor required to he installed as part of the project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talkinIT about the docuntcnt "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development," This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peal: hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. Under redirect by Mr. Newson, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the corrunent period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turudng out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. 'Ilse response noted that the corrruent letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response PRELIM�MARY PLAT - 8 4 VC 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 T) 23 24 25 26 Mr. Paulsen stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that '`If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulsen's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19(h, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice: states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA 14-040241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to I2,566sgft. Tract A is for stor, mwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14 -day notice and comme❑t period commenced on March I0th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on 5E 5tb Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project tivould not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and 5E 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. `lhe city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site, 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and Fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 10 12 13 14 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a storrrtwater wet pond in tract A Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips arc only lOft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the I Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to I l conditions of approval. fn regard to the curved road, Ms Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code. Applicant Testimony Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. L❑ regard to traffic, the protect does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a sinal. Public Testirnouy Tom Ca:-penter testified that he resides within half a anile of the project. I -le often utilizes the transportation systern in tho area. He wzs on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that Nvill intersect with 156th. If Renton's concutTency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does nut utilize a delay of int=ersection even though tetany ether jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 w1iich would result in this area failiva concurrency. In a letter when king County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for 1-405 in the Washington State Corridor System, The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance bomeen moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SF: Stb Place. He submitted a continent letter from him and his wife as Exhibit S. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Fnclave development does not meet slate transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered die city's 6 - year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority Tice NMI NI'S from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. PRFLI_Mll\ARY PLAT - 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 74 25 26 The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12, Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE aad also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the looming. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are tuming left on I56th. you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I -Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the 1-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is Listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4 -lanes at 9Ift. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways he made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer_ The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. I.n regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have -esponsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be ,reated by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is inclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project, frees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is ac :normous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be arotected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks ;hould not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff The city has failed to provide the arborist report, PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 I 4 l fl 11 12 13 I4 15 I6 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or tate tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required there or trade them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided.. In regard to transportation, route 1 1 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would litre to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection, She is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156di is considered a secondary bypass for 1-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the mom ng, thus they will make a [eft onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in die next two years. She also noted that not only tate Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere, These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In g000ling, information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan - Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurriM with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 10ft. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located i1r the staff report. Some reports are req;aired and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it frorn the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city -nide analysis. ExIibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrcncy analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic tiresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher loudi testified titat: With regard to leis. Porsell's cornrnent about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a neer sewer main across 142nd down to [40th. The applicant believes uiat the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELINITNARY PLAT - 12 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 70 21 22 23 24 25 26 Regard€ng the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to took at them on a citytiwide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations, The 2 percent grow-th has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen. Ivor. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, A'Ir. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engincers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination- With regard to the grovAh rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the stair walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. EXMBITS Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w f attachments a -h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-20 i 9 6 -year Transportation lmprovemmt Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments Exhibit 8 Paulsen Commtra Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulsen Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulsen second request for reconsideration Exbibit 12 City's denial of Paulsen's sccond request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility lvtap Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulsen to Jill ting Exhibit 17 6127114 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit l8 6!27/14 email to Examinar responditte to Paulsen comments PREL , ILNARY PLAT - 13 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 ?5 26 Exhibit 19 4;13 pm 6127/14 email to Examiner from Sill Ding Exhibit 20 7!1'14 email to Jill Din- from Roger Paulsen FfNDI GS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. PNV Holdings, LLC, 2. Hearin. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on .lune 24, 20t4 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given unti..l July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Project Description. The applicant rcquest-s prelisrdnary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156x' Avenue Sr between SE 139 ° Place and SE 143d Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsig;rificance (" MD`S' ) issued under the Washington State Envi.ro2.mental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat The proposed lots would rang=e in sire from 8,050 square feet to 12,565 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a nein looped public road (Road A and load B) off of 156"' Avenue SE:. A dead end access is also provided, temiina€ing in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4 45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater_ The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gavel drive,, ays. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequatelappropriate infrastructure and public serrices, specifically including all the infrastructure and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has heen reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and fogad to be sufficient, Specific infrastructure?scrvices are addressed as follon's: PRE LUYID ARY PLAT - 14 I A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A 2 hater availability- certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156't' Avenue SE. 3 4 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition 3 that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are 6 applicable at the rate of 5479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit 7 issuance. 8 C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stoiznwater drainage facilities. A drainage 9 plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City 10 of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to 1 1 develop an on-site storm detentionlwater quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply n-ith City standards and final 12 engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat 13 review. 14 The site is located within the Loner Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas 15 maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Qrting Hills Creek and service area. 16 Based on the City's flow control reap, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration 17 Standard, Forested Condition. 'T"ne project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream 15 conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed 19 rates for the forested condition extending frons 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the 70 southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined seater 21 quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSVdDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be 77 required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BNIPs will be required to 73 help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application 74 Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotccb 25 engineer, and lining may also be required. I PREUM1IvARY PLAT - 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 [0 l] l2 13 14 15 15 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordi_�tanees require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RNC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space_ E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets, roads, alleys and public ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for env-ironmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a Highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a l;ncly tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibiLry to acconurtodate growth available pubic monies for irf astruc€ure improvement,; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation fundix-tg basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunatcly, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measurip_p system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GGA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that ".,.prohibit development app+'oval if the development causes the lEvel ofservice Gn a locally owned transportation facility to decline helow the .standards adopted in the transportation eh -meat of the fransporlation plait, See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In Furtherance of' this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDE scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well- functioning intersection or road segnent and F is a failing intersection or road segment. PRELIM] W ARS` PLAT - 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum IAS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, .B or C to an LOS of D, E or F_ The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding, paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI -26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time_ It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable rneasurina tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, ui many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestions standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELIti NARY PLAT - 17 I development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development 2 moratonum, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. 3 4 The song discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency systenl, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of 5 congestion_ City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that 6 the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Rx. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to E contradict it. Consequently, the Findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The I proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle $ the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the 9 proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. 10 It should be rioted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" 11 concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it 1? causes "...the level of service on a locally otivrzed trarsportation facility to decline below 13 the standards adopled in the rrarzspor-lation eleulmt. " This language is Lal- n very literally by most jurisdictions if an intersection is already operating belov' adopted 14 stwidards. the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will 15 cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them if the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E:, there 16 can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet 17 minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standardsi to affected intersections and finds that the proposal 18 doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All 14 LOS levels stay the same. 20 Although the City's LOS seines as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts 1 at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, 22 C" standards can be based upon professionally recounized levels of congestion that can 23 be applied in an objective and uniform manner, It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 1a6L' Ave. SEiSF 24 142nd Street intersection. however, it needs to be recognized that the ;ability to rely upon 25 these proportionate shale contributions is eery li ited because state law requires that 26 The applicani's enginze.s used the TransFortation Research BoaA Hiehn;v C:anaeity Manual !o calculate LOS. PRFLEVI NARY PLAT - IS 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l5 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex_ 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity, The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than mice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14, See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 20K growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic ert-ineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement required as rrdtigation for the project area, the sitmalization of the 156 t Ave. SE/SE t42 °d Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points_ The applicant's traffic study addendum 'vas subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendurn's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, Mcltrtight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 PRELIMNARY PLAT - l9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mule Gom the project site at 156' Avenue SF &: SE 52' Place, The proposed project includes the installation of frontage 'improvements along the 156`s Avenue SF frontage, including sidewalks. Students t%ould walk a shurt distance along 156 L" Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right -of -nay dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which mould be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156`h Avenue SE at SE 5`� Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156' Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-famiily lot, �i�i.li be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential unpacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton MlInkipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at 56,342.00 per single family residence. 5_ Adverse Imnacts. There arc no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site_ The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. There were concerns raised by about tree preservation RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty, percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. Wben the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trecs, tivith a two-inch (21') caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence_ Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting iu a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and!or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2 -inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated troth the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ('` MNI S") +vas issued for the proposal on 'March 31, 2014_ Roger Paulsen Filed a request for reconsideration with the City on PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ?0 2l 23 24 25 26 April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 3D. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156`s Ave_ SEISE 142"d Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then Ciled the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the NIDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of the156b Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulsen argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law I. Authority. RIMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. ii.N1C 4-9.070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoninia`Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3, SEPA Review Criteria_ There are only two reasons to overturn an NONS: (I) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental lmpacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable sitraificant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). [f such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold de€erm[nation, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). Adequate Environmental Review PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1� 16 t7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 2i 26 The, second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA respotrsible official did not adequately review erivirorictental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official roust make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An a6cncv's threshold dcten-nination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a sho,,ving that-ens-ironmental factors were considered in a manner sc�tclent to make a prima facie showing with the procedw-al requirements of SEPI Churk-anut Conservancy v. ti'ashington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay t'alley Community Ass -'n v. City nf'Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, oa several occasions the courts have examined hoev thoroughly the responsible official revic4ved environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, ll l '4'4'n App. 711 (2002), JWoss v, City of Bellingham, 109 Wn App 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the pritna facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. 77w errviroxn!erttal cliecklist was apparentN deemed insrefjicler!t, Unci therefore the SEPA official asked for additional itfar-niation in (l,e form of - an EA. The City gathered e.ztenuive conur>ents fr-orr! agencies and thepublic, held manerous public n!eetings, and imposed additional mitigation neeasra'es on the project before f¢naliv approving it. ,-Votably, althoiegh appellants complain generally that the irr!pacts were rot adequatell, anal)r=ed, they hai�e failed to cite ar) 'v feeds or Evidence in the record demonstratin r that the project as mitigated �vili calcse signif cant er!vironrrrerrtal impacts warranting w i EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23 -24 - HVAC 197-11-33.5 provides that a threshold deterrt natior' shall be "be based report ittforrnation reasonably sc fficient to evaluate the envirorunenral in!pac•t of a proposal'. See, also, Spo?ane County v. Eastern ff'ashington Growth rtirrr! iger!!ent Hearings Board, 176 `Vn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official Must maLc a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MINS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the ta'o SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the NIDNS is coni using. The notice is ar-uably confusing, but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the; notice. Nir. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the NMNS prior to the colrunent expiration period and rnales no assertion that the notice language prevented him from maldnr, any additional comments. PRI:LiiM NARY PLAN' - 22 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 it 12 l3 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 74 25 26 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non - Sig i icance-vlitigated, alt. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "jclomment periods for the project and proposed DNS -t1 are integrated into a single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Continents on the above application must be submitted in wrifing....by 5:00 pm on March 24 2014.,,,If comments cannot be submitted in ivridng by the date indicated above, you pray still appear at the hearing and presentyour comments.__" W. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the NfDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "f there will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Mon -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -U)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the NIDNrS to seek clarification on when the MDINS comment period expires, The language on the N NS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RIMC 4-9-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the IvIDNS because be was lead to believe he could maize his cornrnents at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr_ Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the NMNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Eh. 1. 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulsen asserts that the impacts of intersection improvetoents required of the developer were not adequately assessed in the SEPA review and also that the Queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his detertninatian upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in numerous SFPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane Cowity case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental cliecklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposcd PREI,L\fI MARY PLAT - 23 2 3 4 5' 61 1 7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 I$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showinb that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the NIDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the INMNI S, Ex. 13, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff: All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City trade a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how revic%v was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" shown; of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that irnfomiation considered was `'reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts, Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the IIADNS, the intersection irnproverients in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen presented no evidence to the contrary. luring preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This fmcling can be made even without the substantial weiuht required due to the deterrninatious of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ft. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156`h Ave SEISE 142"d Street intersection N,411 not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision Mr. Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary. PRi?Ltt\UNARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RHC governs the criteria for preliMinary rcviekv. Applicable standards are quoted below M italics and applied tluough corresponding conclusions of law. RMC4-7-080(B). �t strbdi�-inion shall be co�isiste�tt s. ith the follati=�it:g pi irrctPles chi aCCeptabilin: PRELI�'s LN/UA Y PLAI' - 24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 17 1s 19 20 21 ?3 23 24 75 26 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 12. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or Welland conditions. Constnrction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provisfon for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other prrblic ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes, 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 1(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recomtuended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and wUl not cause flooding problems. As determined in Findin; of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B). R -NIC 4-7-080(l)(1): ...7ire Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance ivilh the general proposes of the Comprehensive Plan and edopted standards... 8. The proposed preErninary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Fin&n.p 1(1) of the staff report, «-I ich is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A). No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner turless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to ON spec;r'ications) to an existing street or highway. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave 5E, a public road. RAIC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall confor-m to anv adopted plans for streets in the City, 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8`� Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. MMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, vrovisions shall be made for reser-v'ation of the right-of-svoy or for easements to the Cio3 for trail awposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 l 7 3 4' 5 6 7 I 9 ]0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?7 23 24 25 26 I l . There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proxi,-nity of eny Official designated trail. Ri1IC 4-7-130(C); A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in con formunce with the following p -as inions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of thefrture residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Laird which the Deportment ar- the Hearing Et�arnhier considers inappropriate Jor subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flo oding4mindatron: If any portion of the land within the botmdany of a preliminlary, plat is subject to flooding or inimclation, drat portion of the subdivision mrist have the approval of the Slate according to chapter 86.16 RCIY before the Dcpartment aril the hearing Examiner shall consider such siibdivision_ b. Steep Slopes: ,4 plat, short plat, sabdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes foi-4, percent (40i,,) or greater as measured per 1U1C 4-3- 0501a, uitlnout adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development nnmv occur, shall not be approved 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-13Lt, Tree Retention and Lond Clearing Realflatro,7s. 4. Streams: a. Presen anion: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve e t7sting sir ea;mzs, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Alethod.- If a stream passes throi(gh any of the subject property, a plan shall be presorted which indicates uraly the stream! S:III be pr'esen-ed, The methodologies mused should biclude ani ove7 flow area, crud an attempt to nrininni_e the disturbance of the natural channel amid stream bed. c_ Crdvertirrg: TJie pipirr or irrnneling of i,°anon shall be discourage.l arrcl cillo ed only i�herl going arneler streets. d. Clean tf'ater: Eveiy effo) i .shall be rrrade to keep all streams trod bodies of water clear of debris and poliutarnts. Pi'.-.L.IMI_VARY PLAT - 26 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 1S 19 € 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not cotf:ribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RXIC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5_ RNIC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or rnulti- fandly residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shrill be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees it; lieu of dedication to the Cit}', all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of part: impact fees prior to building permit issuance. Rl1IC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall artend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Mork Department. Pilor to approving a street system: that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifcations shall be as defined and desngrated by the Departnient. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only rwtd connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arlerials shall be held to a nrininuan. 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. RAIC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public [Marks Departnterrt. The .street standards set by RAIC 4-6-060 skull apply milers otherzvise approved Street ah tonent offsels of less than one hundred twent- five feet (125} are trot desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision ofall necessary safety, Measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards . RMC 4-7-150(E}: PRE' L INITNARY PLAT - 27 3 4 5 6 7 1 8: 9 10 11 12 t3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 i2 23 24 25 26 1. Grid- A •grid street patterer shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any srtbdivision permitted by this Section. I Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidetivalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create o continuous and interconnected nen orti Of roads and pathwaycs. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 throrigh T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -.,VI and Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions: a. Dw- grid pattern ria}' be adjusted to a 'flexible -7-id` by reducing the number of finkOges or the alignment between roads, where the follotiving factors are present on site; i. Infeasible dune to topogr•aplrical/errr,ie•onmental constraints; andlor ii. Slrb.siantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that ling existhig porlions afthe gm7d system shgfl be made. At a nzinimrrni, sorb streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5_ Alle}, Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern e-rcept for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation, The Residential D;ow Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat rvithoat allev access, the Reviewing Offc•ial shall evaluate Ctrl alley la -gout and deterrnirre that the use of alleys) is not feasible.. 6.41tenrative Cortfi Ruations' (7jfset or loop roads are the preferred alternative car figurations. T Cul-de -Sac Streets: Curl -de -sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Officialwhere duce to demonstrable physical constraints no ftatrrre connection to a larger street patlern is physically possible. 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Dcnsity land use designation. The internal roads are Ioopcd as encouraged by the arterio❑ above. Ido cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road j is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met, RI1IC 4-7-150(F): 411 adiacent rights-oj-may and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, isnluding sweels, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fill width and the pavement and sidewalk -s• shalt be co istiucted as specified in the street standards or deferred by the PlaruringIBirildirngrTrcblic U'orLi Admirristr-atou- or his/her designee. 19. As proposed. PRELTN41NAI.1Y 1'LAT- 2S 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 'Y) 23 24 75 26 Rlti'IC 4-7-150(G): Streets that nray be extended in the event of fitture adjacent platting shall be required to he dedicated to the plat boundaty line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a frill -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitaief mire development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. ILNIC 4-7-I70(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RI IC 4-7-170($): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. RITC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall sleet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and rise conternplated. Fitrxher snbdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter- Hurst be consistent with the then -current applicable maxinmru density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area, width and density. RNIC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intesseci with the street right-of-3valy lime) shall not be less titan eighty percent (80%) of the required lot ividth except in the cases of (1) pipestenl lots, which shall have a rnininrrnn width of twenty feet (20) and C2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a mininmrn ofthirtyfivefeet (?j'), 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. R11IC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, Shall have rnininrum roditfs offrfteen feet (lo). ?S. As conditioned. PRELI-MINARY PIAT - 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 R NIC 4-7-190(A): Dine regard shall be .shown to all uaturaI featrtres such as large trees, svaterc•orr+ses, and similar conrrnrurity assets. Such na!ural features should bepreserved, thereby I adding attractiverze,ss and value to the property. Z7. Trees will be -eta' as required by City code as determined in Funding of Fact No, 5. There are no oilier natural Features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RLNIC 4-7-200(A)-. Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Mor1,-s Department and the King Count), Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed it, accordance with City standards. Side sex°er lures shall be installed eight feet (8j into each lot ifsanitary setisvr mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. Rt\IC 4-7-200{R3): An adequate dr-aina;e system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all sulfate hater. Cross drains shall be provided to accorrunodate all natural tivater flow and shall be of steffcient length to perwrit fall tividtlr roadreay and required slopes. the drainage system shall be designed per the r-egtrirerner¢ts of R -MC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface ii'aier) Standards The dr-airtage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include deterttiort capacity forf iture developrxent of the Iots. 11aterquahty features shall also be designed to pros fide capacity far• the nese street paving far the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of- Fact No. 4. The Clrv's storrnw?ter standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further itnpletnented during civil plan reti°iesv-, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above R'NIC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution sysiem including the locations of fire /rvdr-ants shall be desi;r2ed and Installed iu accordance ivith Ciry standards as defined by the Department and Dire Deparrtiacni regrrirenreuts. 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RIMC 4-7-200(D): .411 utilities designed to senje the subdivision shall be placed underground. Air), Utilities installed ill tire. porli+!g strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to he located beneath pas -id sw faces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Departrnerrt. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of airy siol'ace material Easerirents Wray be required for tlre maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. FRELI'411NARY PLAT - 30 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ! 2a 21 23 74 25 26 129. As conditioned. RI}IC 4-7-200(E). ,any cable TTI conduits shall be undergrounded at the sante tinze as other basic utilities ar-e installed to serve each lot. Conduit far service connections shall be laid to each lot lime by subdivider- as to obviate the necessityfor disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley iniprovements when such service connections are crtended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer- and/or land owner-. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable Tlr company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and cert, to the City that it is properly installed 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210- ,4. MONUMENTS: Concrete pennanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as deterngined by the Deparbnent. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton sre vcving standards. B. SURVEY All other- lot congers shall be marked per the Citv surveying standards C. STREET SIGNS: Rze srtbdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the follolv'ing conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Sigiz 5cance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the Cary. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have rninirnum radius of fifteen feet (15'). PRELLMINARY PLAT - 31 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 26 4. Side sever lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. AIL utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be locate) beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Fasements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public'Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be under rounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate tate necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals ancUor vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer andior land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to fmal ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. TLe applicant shall install all street naive signs necessary in tho subdivision prior to final plat approval. S. Cin, staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156"' Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of' lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by Rh4C; 4-7- 150(G) if tris is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition per -snit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single farnily residence and detached garage prior to Final flat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Flaaai lg Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). PRI [.11vflNARY PLAT - 32 2 3 4 5 6 S 9 10 12 13 14 15 lb 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the Cutal plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat_ 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist, 15. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 17. The plat reap shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planting Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 20. The applicant shall be required to create a honteowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the documents) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attomey and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. PRELIMINARY PIAT - 33 1 3 4 5 6 7' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21. Bamboo may not he used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATER this 13th day of August, 2014. I'MA.01brcchis City of Renton Hearing Exami.rrer Appeal Rigbt and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-050 provides that the final decision of the hearing cxamiaer is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council, RMC 4-5-110(1-)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be Fded w ithin fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearintr examiner's decision_ A request for reconsideration to the hearing exarn,�ner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-11d(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information retarding the appeal process may be obtained froin the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`h €loor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Y PRELIMINARY PLAT - 34 l 3 4 s 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 73 24 ?5 76 BEFORE THE REARM EXAAMNER FOR THE CITE' OF RENTOi1 Pa: The Enclave at Bridle Mae ) Preliminary Plat } FEYAL DECISION Preliminary Plat and SETA Appeal j LUA14-000241 ) ) SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156"' Avenue SE betvvicen SE 139`s Place and SE 143'" Strect- An appea I of a Mitigated Deterr enation of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (`SEPA") vvas consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City Council. LOS sets what the City- has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traldic congestion. The SEPA appellants have. not derncnstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. Che City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe ;ongestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's ransportation network. Nonetlreless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard hat can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth rlanagement Act mandate For the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth, (2) unitations on the availability, of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to rc state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for `tc traffic impacts they create (e,g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELI ITNARY PLAT - I 2 4 6 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 76 improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvenicrnt); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will lik-cly result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent %viLh the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant - In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not perfomiing w01, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies aril l not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and tate record does not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the CiN,'s adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. TEST IMO- Y SEPA rkppellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by «ay of an intersection of SF 5th Place and 136th Avenue SE. which makes the tragic conditions on 156th a primary concern to hies and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually Failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determi;ration was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide corrrrrtents regarding the project because of the city's fiilures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues witlh one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, tits tragic enguteer for the project i; able to provide information on hoL` the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that lie is a principal engineer with Trafl -",- His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 2i, 2013 (I]xhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by tine plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the protect. done of the intersections in Menton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked Traft.x to look at the txvo site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and l 56th Sl. `Chis latter intersection PRELD INARY PLAT - 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is a stop -controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. Tra£tEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables I and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peals hour is worse than the ant peal: hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a pian to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraftEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service 13 in the a.m. and p,m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The Southside access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. Under cross-examination by Mr_ Paulson, Mr. Geclia stated that the city requested an am peal: analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Ivir. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pin peak hour. Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peal: hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Ge;lia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare stat am traffic is greater than pin traffic. City Testimony to regard to the procedural issues raised, lul_r. Gamlon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, Mated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were Jenied the opportunity for submitting somethin- late. He noted that Nlr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems ikely others would have as well. Additionally, iv1r. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELI1'V11NARY PLAT - 3 lu 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such a5 Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city ,,vas relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Ding, Menton Senior planner, testified that Ivlr, Paulson submitted a comment letter during the SEPA cotnrr.ent period (Exhibit 2, attachment 2 I ). Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, slated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word .`should." Flowever, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situatioa. Even in the pm there was not a Five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer foc the city. Slee reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, inciuding Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high basad on her experience. In. sorne places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection, the city has stidied the traiiic in this area. The city conducted a s€ud)' to Bete€niijre if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections i -, February, 201 4. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and Found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The hvo satisfied were the incornin0 volumes and p•:ak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvennents. "l he need for the sural is not related to the proposed project because the exis in4 traffic, was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move Forward, the city' would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic cor:nts in ,lune, 2014 (Exhibil 5) [or 156th and 1 42nd. In Chis new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service vroUld be with a signal. The city found that tine level of service would be good, and the queues would not back, tip to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. level of service F means then_ is tots ordelay. With a traffic signal, the art level of service would be C; and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing trnftic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close -by. Under cross-examination by Mt. Paulson, Nls. Nair tes€died that, in regrard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pin study would be required. ilnder cross-exan1ina6on by N1r. Paulson, yls. Ding noted that one publ is comment was received PRE PLAT - 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 after the close of the comment period_ The city responded to this continent and did not deny its entry into the record. The continent letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part ofthe project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2011-2019 b -year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Nit. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document `Policy Guidelines for Trac Impact for New Development_" This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peal, hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a Q ideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. if five percent was the only Factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. Under redirect by Mf_ Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the continent period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection, The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process, Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the tragic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public eonunent on the first page. On the second pace, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS, The second page says that "If comments cannot be submilted'in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments," Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their continents at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, i4r. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by inlay 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before tMay 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELPNUNI ARY PLAT - 5 10 1' 13 14 l� 16 17 18 19 20 21 77 23 2,1 25 26 NLr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the continent period pito one period The notice states that there will be no comment period a!ler the DNS issuance. LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 3.8 acres and curren,Lly Zoned residential low-derisity in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft_ Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There Nvas a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft front the subdivision. The removed area includ:d a sin,le-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision wil I be provided via a new looped public street ofl-of 156th Ave SF. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. 'I here are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14 -day notice and continent period commenecd on March 10th, and the city received two cornmertt letters during the period_ The city received one additional lerer after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 315t. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE, 5th Place. In response to the request; the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and Sh 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal Nvas warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSLIY1 on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new tragic signal. A new appeal period corruneuced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will he replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stonnsvater suet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only 10ft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the 10ft strips be approved and be tstalled as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 1 1 conditions of approval. In regard to the curved road, Ms. Mair testified that she believes strai,&:tt road -alignments are policy, not code. Applicant TestlIrrork, PRELLYILN'ARY PLAT - 6 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 77 23 24 25 26 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code require certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to rneet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Toni Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concemed with the roads that will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though inany other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. in a letter when Ding County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for 1-105 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit S. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Ex}vbit 9). He entered the city's 6 -year 'Transportation Plan into rhe record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every nvo years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The Nn)NS from May 19th -reated a nexus between the development and the traffic sinal_ The May 19th decision failed to include i traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and ,rade available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, 3ut his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd ?lace. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the conuiuinity. The area needs pore stability before it can }candle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different imes than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the momin�* the did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the )roblem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. PRFLUv11NARY PLAT - 7 10 12 t3 14 15 16 17 t 19 20 2l 23 24 25 26 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turnuig left on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an 1 -Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sighs 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures frons the traffic analysis, the distance froth the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 1 19ft which is less than die standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been id:ntificd as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4 -lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-o#=ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop tiN111 create a dangerous situation because of poor lightin4, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts ofnctiv development In regard to stot;lnvater, INIs. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance systern. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other horses. The project needs a level 3 stormkvater system. It is unclea- who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to he certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lase 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city plarming staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, €Ile tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made thein available to the public, A lighting plan also should be provided. En regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, an where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as F - iibit t 3. Roada Bi -,,ant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the nc.\1 couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting tl,,e 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concemed that no impact analysis has been done on the ne\-t intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for 1=41105 hien this nest intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic lis bt will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a lett onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next Lwo years. She also noted that PU-LfIWNAR, Y PIAT - 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 li 1& 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses oo through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will chane in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try, to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problem for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling, information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to buds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15fi requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1011. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recornmended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To Clarify' questions regardin- traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a cit rwide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works departtnent and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Nis. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements, The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citytivide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis_ With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. ivir. Carson believes that they have answered this During the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to irnprovemenLs in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even :hough they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response PRELINIT ARY PLAT - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 12 13 14 1 16 I i 17 IS 19 i 20 i 21 22 23 2=4 75 26 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarditng the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hoar times, lite city refer- to the nationai standards developed by thG institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference dOcttnhent for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this irtformation is provided by the transportation planning section- Rogar& g the site distance concern noted in els. High's documentation, she noted that the staff' walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. EXHIBITS EXL'Dit i Notice of Appeal w/ alachmcnts a -h Exhibit 2 Staff Report wJ attachment; 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 Traf#Ex Traffic Study !addendum dated Jure 20, 2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Trafitic Counts from Jane, 2014 Exhibit b City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation imp,ovement Plan Protect Number 2 Exhibit 7 'l om Carpenter comments Exhibit 8 Paulson Comment 1,etter Exhibit 9 Petition stabmirted by Mr. Paulson Exhibit to City of Renton Six Year Transportation Plan Exhibit I 1 Poulson second req.rest for reconsideration )exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulsnn's second request for reconsideration. Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn high C'onunent Packet Exhibit 1<t Map provided by RondaBgmt E%hibit 13 Utility ,Mala Extibir 16 612611 �4 errait from 1?o�er Paulson t0 Jill Dingy E\hbit 17 6127114 entail from Brent Carson %,,ith attachn.Icnts respon; in` w, public corzunett: Exhibit IS 6,'27114 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments Exhibit 19 4:13 pnt 6!2-;/14 email cc) Examinzr from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 711114 entail to .til I Dina from Roger Paulson FINDINGS 01., FACT Proced"t-A., 1. An licant. PNW floldirgs, LLC, 2. Ilearina. A consolidated hearin4 ou the preliminary plat application: and SEI'Aappeal was held on June 24, 20 14 in the City of Rcnwn Council City Chanhbers The SEPA appellant, Mar. Paulsen, was given until lune 27, 2014 to provide written conunznt to traffic reports submitted by the applicant durirg the hearing. The applicant vtias riven until July I , 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 PRI:L IFNARY PLAT - 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 l7 is 19 20 21 7'3 23 24 ?5 26 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide conurhent on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156" Avenue SE between SE 139'° Place and SE 143`' Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (° 1VIDNS") issucd under the Washington Stare Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated witlh the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size frorn 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new topped public road (Road A and Road B) o$ of 156" Avenue SE, A dead end access is also provided, terminating in.a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of4,45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containin; inforntation on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and eroundwater. T7he site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage. and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision, 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Tublic Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure,`,ervices are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service, Water service will be provided by Water District R90- A water availabilit;- certificate tivas submitted to tlhe City. Server service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer maim in 156'x' Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources ex: t to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvemcnts and fees. fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of 3479.25 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time ofbuilding permit issuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Penton Amendments to the KCSWN1, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop ITtEL1MFNARY PLAT - 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s lei 20 21 22 ?j 24 25 26 an on-site storm de tent ioru`avatcr quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public won',- staff have found the draina-e plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plata tivill be submitted for City revie%v and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by laking County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Uttng Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control reap, this site falls within the Flow Cartrol Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstreatt: conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sired to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition eVending fiorn 50% of the 2 year tip to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and yvct pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility tivill be required per the 21009 King County SWDIM and the City of Renton Ameridrnerrts to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BNIPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drairraac report must be submitted with tha utility construction permit application. Sccondar)' review may be regt,ircd for the pond %with both structural cugineer and geotech engineer, a7d lining may: also be required D. Parks/Ooen Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building perr7iit issuance. RMC 4-2.-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does riot have any specific requirerne.rts for open space fgr residential development in the R=1 district. the impact tees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets Congestion was a source of nnajor concern of persons who attended the hearing==, It is very clear that many people 4vlio live in the area find the streets too congested. Ilativevcr, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is uoverried City Courcil adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what series as "adequate' traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. %Vithorrt an 1,0S standard, attempting to detertnine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subj,�ctivc analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the Las to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate resporisil ihly to accomnnodate ay.dh, available publicmonies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional inundates that developers only pay their fair share of M.rastructtrre improvements. Imposing PREI,INIINAi:Y PLAT - 12 2 3 4 r 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 l8 19 20 2l 22 73 24 25 �€ i ?6 I a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Fenton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements and hoc it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Gra,�vth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities aloe] with ordinances that "...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of seivice on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation Plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and'or road segments with ratings based upon an A13CDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a welkfiinctiorung intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as ininirnum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (l ) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (33) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outl sled in the preceding paragraph allows for a vei), localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E oi- F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use pattens, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard); and this standard is then unposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment ofcongestion. There is no A, 11 or C ;rade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELPv!INAR Y PLAT - 13 4 S 6 7 e 9 la ll l? I� l4 l5 IG 17 1R 19 20 21 23 21 25 26 Renton Comprehensive Ilan, J ransportation Element, p. XI -26- The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined liom the comprehensive plan, but it appear that this standard imposes vi=i-tually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index' system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical `-A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation ftincling and planning priorities, those scone issues directly affect project level review. In tlta absence of City plarnirtg or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many it not most cases it will not be possible tti impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development morawrium, or (F3) the developer would l)e required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, �I,hich is also uncorstitutional. The lung discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's eonc,trrency wstem, even if it is a city -wile system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportatior: LOS. See Ex 26. No one has disputed this concurrency deterndriaLion and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Couseouently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurreacy, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated b}' the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal «ould not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the mote traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the G`,M only requires dcrial of a proposal if it causes "...ilre level of scrvice On a locally Owned rronsportadorr facility to decline bzlou, tl,t standards adopred in tl,z trrinsportatiorr eler,: ;ar.. " This language is taken very literally b3l most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adapted standards, th,e PRFLITMltirARY PIN!" - 14 3 4 6 7 5 9 10 11 12 13 III 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 77 23 24 25 26 i provision doesn't apply. It only applies if proposed development will cause all intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them_ If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standardsi to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Lx. 2, MI LOS levels stay the sarne. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156"' Ave. SEISE 142od Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 32.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic d owth. This vvns disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity_ The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than hvice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19_ Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, tate signalization of the 156`'' Ave. SE/SE 142'' Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mi. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. '11.e applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research BOar�iHiY�zw�} Capacity ManJsf to calculate LOS Pl`ELI VIINARY PLAT - 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 U 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '2 6 The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by t're intcr.section would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is dctc.rmincd that the intersection will not create an,. queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F, Parkinit. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accomrnodate required off street parking for a minimurn of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools, It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools; Ntip'elvood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .Oft mile front the project site at 156" Avenue SF, & SE 5" Place The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements alor:g the 156` Avernie SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156`� Avenue SE north ofthe project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for sale v alking conditions (l Yhibit 25) In additiori, the City is requiring right-of-N4ay dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed front the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the fuhjrc installation of frontage improvements Which would be required upon the receipt of a Rlture subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students 1-vould he required to cross 155`) Avenue SF- at SF. 5'" Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156" Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of d,,is road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single -fancily lot, will be rctluired in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to die City as specified by the Renton ML[Hicipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at S6,392M per single Fancily residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is sul- ounded by single Family development so compadbiiity of use is not an issue. PRFLIIIINARY PLAT - 16 to 12 13 14 15 16 17 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RNIC 44-130H requires thirty percent of die trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees; with a two-inch (2") caliper or gurcater, must he planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 34 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance (°°MDNS") was issued for the proposal on March 3l, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 16, 2014, Ea. 29, This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex- 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156't' Ave. SEISE 142"1 Street intersection. Mr. Paulson then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the ivIDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel56"' Ave. SE/SE 142"Q Street intersection improvements. Nir_ Paulson argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts %6th the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Coticlusions of Law I . Authority. RUNIC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning'Conhprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL: 3, SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overtum an 1.1DNS' (1) there are urLnitigated probable siQnilicant adverse envirormiental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has P1'\.ELl1vIlINARY PLAT - 17 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11; 19 20 2l 77 ?3 24 25 26 not undertaker an adequate review of environmental !actors as required by SFPA regulaiir}ns. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed bellow. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environineatal tmoacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an 'YLD rS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11- 330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the NMNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse envirorunenLd impacts. In the altemativc, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SETA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. 1'{QAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). P. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible ofticial did not adequately review environmcncal inlpicts in reaching his tiueshold detc.rmiriation. 1 he SEPA responsible official must niake a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. Alt agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial derence, but the agency must make a showing that "em-iror#IreWai facfors were cunsidtired ill a lrlarrler sh�rcigYlf to "lake a Jwinla�f;Cle sho,r•i;r; it ith the procechfrai regrlirewelhts of SL -PA.' Chuckon!rt Coriservcmg,, i. FVoshillgtort StatE? Dept. of Natural Resoarces, 156 Wn. App. 271, 286-787, quoting Jrrarlifa Bay !alley C nrluturrrfh ,'SSS,11 i'. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard; on several occasions the courts have exanluied how thorou2lily the responsible official reviewed envirorunental impacts u1 addition to assessi_-ig whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Hoehn; i. Ciq' of i``ancouver, ll1 Wn. App. 711 (2002); ,Moss v. City, or Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the pci.-na facie rule and then applied it as follows! Ilse record iwiicafes thar the prosect received a great deal of rev ow. 'Ile onvirortnrewril rhecklisf ti.as apparently deemed iasufflciew, and therefore the SFP;i official asked far adcktiolml hnrornuuinn in the farm of an fil, The Cii;, gathered exletisive comments filom agencies and the Public, lleld mimerotls public lrreetlllg5, and imposed adduiorlal rnitigaarion meas1fres oil the pra ecf before),ma"ll: approving it. Notablv°, cl!ihough aprlellaius corn _plabi gens rally ibat the I'M n:rctr Were trot atlegzimely clxcrlyred, they !gine failed to cite or e0 erlce irr'he record rlerrro,rstrakrtg flier/ fire project as mltr;atecl wili caflse sigolfcorht environlllerhial impacts uvarrantinu cvl EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. PR.ELLMINARY Pi A"f - 18 10 12 1.3 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 6 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be ''be based upon information: reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane Coumn r v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn, App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the NIDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- Sipificance-Mitigated, aft. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "fcjomment periods for the project and proposed DiVS M are integrated into a single conarnent period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing.—by 5:00 pm on March 24, 20114....If comments cannot be submitted in svritiarg by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the bearing and present your comments,.. " Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the NIDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably coafitsing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the MONS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[tjhere ivill be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Xon-Sign fcance-Afitigated (ERA'S-Itfj." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MONS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a ne�v Iresltold determination cannot be addressed in this decision, Mr, Paulson does not have standing to ?ursue his notice issue. As required in RNIC 4-8-110(B)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant most have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision ander appeal, Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the 1VIDNS 3ecause he was lead to believe he could make his conumnLs at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. .n point of fact Mr, Paulson submitted numerous cofnments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to he issuance of the NIDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. i. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulson asserts hat the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in he SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELLMINARY PLAT - 19 10 12 13 14 15 16 ll l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 points to the proposed preliminary plat, It is concluded that tic SEPA review tivas adequate and that the intersection irnprovernents will not cret:te any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(8), the standard is that the SEl'A responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his detcrmination upon intorniation reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impact; of a proposal. 'The standard has been applied ui numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issncd Spokane Comity case, supra, no court has ever found the level of rcvieEv to be lacking. The Spokane Cowur , case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use arrendnient along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for tke site and the site was located in a critical aquifor area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly ma& a prima facie showing that it dial not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the N -LD vS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 1?; was prepared a,ialyring impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number cif trips generated for those Litersections was not sufficient to trig=ger an LOS analysis under City policies The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the l9DNS, Ex. l$. identify six transportation issues that wereassessed by City engirieerinU stall. All of this trat.lic review conditcled by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" shotivin3 that it had sufficient icient information to reasonably evalumc the traffic impacts of tine proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distin�nished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse irr;pacts. .The adequacy of review fust addresses tiic overall due diligence in how review was conducted (fence the requirement that the City only make a 'prima facie" showing of compliance) When dealing with adequacy of review, the City dots not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant ad: ,rse impacts, only that information considered wa' `-reasonably sufficient" to evalwtte environmental impacts Of course, if a single issue is signiticwit and will clearly cause adverse �iryacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a show•in of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDyS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson presented no evidence to the contrar ,. During preparation of the 11.MNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that tale impacts Of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intet-section will create probable; significant adverse environrnental impacts, the record is cleat- that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required date to the deterfainations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addend+ -rig, fix 4, provides aiv e tgirneering analysis prepared by a Pr.'_1=.S,W1.� ARS' PLAT -20 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 la 11 l2 l3 14 15 16 l7 is 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156`' Ave. SF,/SE l42°d Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr, Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. ME.Lir1�1.1f\AKY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 Rr1�1C governs the criteria for preliminary rcviev�. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent tivilh the followingprinciples of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code, 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat pray be denied because of flood inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements ntay be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage rv�71m3s, streets, alle}s, Other public sVrrvs, Irate), supplies and sanitary wastes, 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all reco.nrnended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4; the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. WNIC 4-7-1)80(0)(1): ...1718 Hearing Examiner shrill assure conformance with the general purposes of the Courpre liens ive Plan and adopted standards .. 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehermsive Plan as outlined in Finding I(l) of the stab report, which is incorporated by this reference as ifset forth in f611, RMC 4-7-120(A): No plop for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Nearing Eraniiner wiless the st+•eets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specificarions) to on existing street or higlnvo); 9. As shown ur Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road systenm connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road. RMC 4-7-120(13): The location of all streets shall con(orvrr to any adopter! pians for streers In the City. PRELHM [NARY PLAT - 21 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 1'4 la 16 17 4S 19 20 21 77 23 24 25 26 10 The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible far the proposal would be to an extension of SE 81' Street, �4hich is accommodated by a stab road. CorvSequetrtly, the criterion above iS construed as satisfied b)• the proposal RNIC 4-7-I20(C): 1fa subdivision is located in the area ofun officicdly designeel [sic] trail, provisions sholl be made for resen ation of the rights -of way or for easements to the 04 - for trail T urpo5e.s 11, There is nothin4 in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official. designated trai I. RNNIC 4-7-130(C), A plot, sho+-t pl:;t, srrbLhvislon or declrcatron Slrcrli be preperrecl ill conforrrrance with the following prop islons: 1. Larrd Unsuitable for- Subdr.^ision: Lind ii hick is forrfrd to be unsuitable for strb hvisioar inchrsles land with features likely to he harrr,•ful to the .safety and gencra! health oftl;e fiaw-e residents (such as lands adversely gffected by f oolbig, steep slopes, or rock for»rrrtions) tatrcl which the Deparrrrreni or the Hearing 1_yanuner• cortsider•s inappropriate for srtbdivision shall not he strbdfl-&c d unless O' e4uare scrfeguarcls ar•e provicled against these adverse conditions. rr..f locdirigifnrrrtr'atir n: l/ -any: portion of the ICInCI Within the borrnd_7rr' of o pre,'ilninwy pint is subject to flo•+cling or irmrrdction, that portion of the snbdiyisiori must have the approval of the Store according to chapter rS6.16 R( 4' before the D:perr ++rent card the Ffearing Fcaminer shall consic-ler such strbdiNsion- b. Sreep Slopes: A phut, short plat, srrbc v"5ion or dedication;3hich ssorrlcl result in the cree7tiorz ofn lot or lots that primarily hcn'e slopes forty percent (40%') or great -21 -as measure4 per RA[C 4-3- 050JI a, without odegiiate ar'eo at lesser slopes upon >nhich des,,Iopn,erri man- occur, sholl not be approved. s. 1_oncl Clearing crrd Tree Reterrllon. Shall complt ss(th R,,WC 4-4-130, Tree Reter;tiorr card Land Clearin Ru;gZrltrtio)is, 4. Srreoms: c. Preservatiart: Isyer': r•easonabie e fort s.ho11 be mc7de to preserve existing strec,us, bodies of is•_ -iter, arrd zr?atlaWl rrre,'15. PR ELrN1INA RY PLAT - 22 J 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 _I 23 24 b_ Method: If a streant passes through any ofthe sribjecr properry, a plan shrill be presented which indicates hois the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the no rural channl and stream bed. C. Culverting: The piping or hinneling of water shall be discouraged and alloiced only when going tinder streets. d Clean 0'ater. Every effartshall be made to keep all streams and bodies of crater clear of debris ant! pollutants. 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to Hooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trecs will be retained as required by FDIC 44-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No, 5. RtlIC 4-7-140; Approval of all subdivisions located in either single farni4l residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent itpon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigafe the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedt,re.s for this mitigation shall be per the Cih- of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact Fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(-A): Die proposed sheet system shall extend and create connections behreen existing streets unless otherivise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shrill meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The road3ircry classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shoo,,rn in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 15£ Ave. S. is currentiy the only I ead comicction possible For the project. RNIC 4-7-150(8): fill proposed -street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RNIC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting titiith existing or proposed public highFtui s, nicjor or seconlai)- arterials shall be held to a mininvan. 16. The proposed corri:ction to t 56 Ave. S. is the only connection possible For the project, 25 RMC 4-7-150(D): The aliginnent of all streets shall be t•ei,ieireci arx-1 appi-oved by the Public Porks 26 Department. The street stcwdajrds set by RMC,; -6-060 shall apply unless ofhenrise approved Street I)R—ELTKUNARY FLAT - 23 i 4 5 6 7 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 2 i 74 25 26 alignment offsets of less than One htendred lite nty five feet (115) are not desirable, but may be appro,,,ed by the Deparlment upon a showing of neer!bra only after provision of all necessan• safeti measures. 17. As detert-pined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Depa-i.ment has revinved aced approved the ad:quacy of streets, �-vhich includes eoinpliancc , iOi applicable street standards. . RNIC 4-7-150(E): i 1. Grid: rl grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and neii development and shall be the predominant street pattern in anv subdivision perrnilled by this Section. 2 Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they Carr create a continuous and inlerc•onnec-ted netisork of roads and pathtir crus. Lnplonentatio7r of this requirement shall comply with Compreher�sii'e Plan Transportation Eleme l Objective TA and Policies 1-9 through T-16a77d Community Design Element, Objective CD -Aland Policies CD -50 and CD -00. 3. Exceptions a. The grid potter7r mu'r be adiu stecl o a 'flexible grid" by reducing ilie member of linkages or the alignment between roods, where, the follolvb7' factors are present on Site. i. lnit crsible drie to cmidlor Ii. .Substantial irnprai erreent,s are e,ristirr. 4. Connections: Prior to adaption 0)Cl conrt7lcie grid V7-Cet plan, reasanabl2 connections drat ling existing portions of the grid system shall be made. .41 n min in. rim, stub sweets shall be required ivi(hiil subdivisions to allow f rttire cot! lie ctii,i;. 5. 4Ile}' Access: ,alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in tete Residential Loi., Detrsity lard use designation. The Residential Loin Density land use designation includes the RC, R 1, and R-4 :ones. Pt•ior to approval ofa plat without alle} ocress, the Reviuwing official shall evaluate an alley lot out and determine that the iesr ofolle-v(s) is not feasible... 6-41iernatiie Configurations Ofjset os• loop roods are t1>e preferred altarnativc configurations. 7. Crit -dc -Sac Streets: Cu! -rte -sire streets inav only be permitted b}' the Reviewing Qoicial where due to depronso-able phi ical constrcriws no future connectinrr to a larger street pattern is physicallY possible. 18. As shown in Stti3 Report Ex. 3, no grid pa€teed is possible for the proposal. Mley access is not required since the piupo,jl is in a Residential Low Density land Use designation. The internal roads are PRETAM Ni ARY PEAT - 24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 j E 1$ 19 20 71 22 23 24 25 7b Pooped as encouraged by the criterion above, No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. R IC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights -of tivcrf and neav rights-of-tivay dedicated as pert of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fall ►vidth and the pavement and sidztivalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public TVork-s Adininistrator or his/her- designee. 19. As proposed. R11IC 4-7-150(G): Streets that way be extended in the event of f,lure adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be unproved with temporary turnarounds, Dedication of a f dl-)vidth boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned_ As sho«n in Ex. 3 to d:e Staff Report, the stub road extension extends For a depth greater than an average lot so a ternporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practicnI, side lot lures shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to carved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the sidz lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RAIC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road Access play be by prilvate access easerraent street per ilte regtrirenr2rrFs of the street standards. 22. As previoushV determined, each lot I:as access to a public street. 121'IC 4-7-170(0): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the miniumm area acrd tisidth regieirenrents of the applicable -onina class cation and shall be appropriate for the type of development acrd use contemplated. further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable warionan deasi4, requirement as measured ivithin the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the Ra zone, which inclsdes area, width and density, R NIC 4-7-170(D): Midth between side lot livres Cat their forenost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect ivith the street right-of-3s:m lime) shall not be less than eigh,7- percent (80%) of the regtaired lot width es-cept in the cases of (1) pipestern lots, }vhich shall hm�e a minirnurrr width of PRl L1ti1INAltY PLAT- 25 I 2 mi 4 6 7 S 9 l0 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 IS l4 2 t, 21 22 i3 24 25 26 ts,enW f et (20) and (2) lots on a street curt e or rite turning circle of call -de -sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty fie feet (35 )_ 24. As sliown iii Staff Report l✓,r•. 3, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E):.411lo( corners al interseclioris afdedicated preblic ri-his-of-wgv, except nllEys, shall have minimum radius gfflfreea feet (15). 25. As conditioned. RIN : 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shoal rl to all natriralfi-mmires such as large trees, Ivatercow'ses, and similar communi4, assets. Srrclr rrutural feafures shouldbe prese+ved, thereby adding afi•activerless attd valtij to the propert}, 25. Trees will he retained as required by City code as det�rrnined ir. Finding of Fact No. 5, 'There are no other, natural featiires that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RNIC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specially approi'ed by the Public Works Deparim,, tt and the King Co:rrrty Health Depar•rmen1, saniiar3� seiters shall b;: provide, by the developer at aro cost to the Cio, and cLsig led in accordance with C'il. standards. Sicle seiner- lures shall be installed eiaht feet I ) in"o ecrclr lot ifsanit_Iry S.,wer mai.-:s are cn•ailable, or provided with the subdivision develaornetit. 26. As conditioned. R.MC 4-7-200(13): An aclegrrate drair!age system shall be providc>if for the proper drainage ofcdl sits fared wat�, r. Cross dra;rts shall be provided to accorm!aodale all natural wales flow and .shall be of st f adient lenvh to pt unit f til -Il idth roadit•ay, and regi. -bred slaves The drarraagz system shall be designed per (lie re uirernerrls of PIX 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface (l'oter) .Standards 777e drainage System shall inchide delowiotl capa:;it} for Me +aew strea,t sirens IZesidentrcal plats .shall also inchide detention capacity for ftrrrme developrnent of rhe lots. Mater gpilily features shall also be designed to provide capacity fog• the now street paging for the plat. 27, 'Tire proposal protides For adequate drainaue that is in conformance with applicable Cit -y draina e standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. '1. The City's sionmvater standards, whi6 are incorporat.,d into the tecluucal information report and will be further implemented during civil plan re.viesv, ensure compliance ,..itll al I of tllc standards ii,, the criterion nuoked abati'e 1.}'IC 4-7-200(['): The intra -r drstriburion sysfem mchiditrr the localmns offre hydrants shall be desiQ!;ed and installed In aCCOr'ciallCe with ('r.r,' standards as (!envied bV lite Liel.7artT!aeFit and 1'Jre Deparmre+r! rearair erl:er:ts PR EIANUNARY PLAT- - 20 c 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, 10 Il i 12 13 14 1J 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 74 25 26 2S. Compliance. with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RNIC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Stich installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any stuface material. Easements nray be required for the maintenance and operation of wilities as specified by the Department, 129. As conditioned. IZIIC 4-7-200(E): Any cable YV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities erre installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, inchiding sidelvalks, or alley improvements when Stich service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals anchor vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring set -vice to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. Vie subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his developrnent. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. Die cable T1' comporty shall provide Wraps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the condidt and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 30. As conditioned. RNIC 4-7-210: A MONUMTNTS; Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and ever3, controlling corner of the subdivision. interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department, All surveys shall be per the City of Renton sure=eyingstandards. B. SURIEY- All other lot corners shall be marked per the City sun -eying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdrOder shall install all street name signs necessor7, in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. PRELINIr\ ARY PLAT - 27 1 2 3 7 6 71 81 9 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 17 19 19 20 i _I 22 23 24 25 -26 DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described Li-. this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the fol lowing conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Dote rnlI nation of '14011 -Si a-) i ficanCe for the proposal. 2. All proposed street nantes shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot corners at inkersectiors cl- dedicated public rights-cf-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteern 1eet(15'). 4. Side sever lines shill be installed eight feet (8') L--ito each lot if sanitary sctivcr mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities instilled in the parking strip shall he placed in such a ntaruzer and depth to PIaTr-lit thic planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, includin . all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public ,V)rks. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of ary surface Mn,teri�l, l asenicnts may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Deparr_mcnt ofPublic 'Works. 6, Any cable TV conduits small be undcrgroi.rnded at the sarnc time as other basic utilities are installed to seil'e each lot. Conduit for sen'ice connections shall be laid to each lot line by Ap?hcanE as to obviate the necessity for diSturb ng the street area, including sidewalks, or all;:y improvements when Stich service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring setvice to the devc1opment shall be borne by the: developer and/or land ovtiner The applicant shall be responsiLle only for conduit to serve his dz4eloprnent. Conduit ends shall be elboWetl to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specificntio€ts to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to U,.e. City that it is properly installed. 7. •i'lie applicant shall install all stir-ck:t namc signs necessary in the subdivision prix, to tinal plat approval. PR>vl.:iNi FNNR Y 1'LA'l' - 2S i 8. City stafl'sltalI investizate whether the proposed 156" Ave crossing for school children is safe in ? terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 3 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary tum around as required by RttiiC 4-7-150(G) `l if this is not already proposed. 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised 6 Determination ofNor.-Significance Mitigated, dated 1ti1ay E9, 2014, 10. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to final Plat recording, 1 9 11. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current 10 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). ll 12 Th(-, landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shalt be installed prior to 12 recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of 13 I Occupaney for the new single family residences. E V 14 13. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect 15 the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however 16 staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of 17 trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Futal Plat. 19 Eel. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application 19 identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 20 15. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 21 15. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract A as dedicated right-of-vvay. The revised -- plat rnap shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the ?3 final plat. 24 16. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both Structural engineer and 25 geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 26 PRELIMINARY PIAT - 29 fi 1 1 I 7. Site grading shall be limited to the suTzuner months. If the 2radiq is to take place durin�l 2 cite wetter reinter or spring monih, a contingency shall be provided in the Project budget to allow for export of native soil and impart of structural fill. 3 18. `i he applicant shall be required to create a horncosmer's association of maintenance 4 agreement for the shared utilities, stormwatcr Facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A drab of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project NIanager for the reviewr and approval by the City Attorney and 6 Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 7 19. l3arnboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. S 9 DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. _ 10 1111i 01hWh ,— J1 1 City of Renton HearingExaminer L 13 I 14 A1peal ItiIF11t and Valwition Notius 1] i RNIC 4-9-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the heari_7; e\aminzr is subject to appeal to the 16 E Renton City Council. RAIC 4-8-1 IO(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing evatr:int is decision tc be 171 filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A rzciuest for reconsideration to the 13caring e examiner ruay also be filed with n this 14 day appeal period as I S identified in MMIC 4-8-1 14(F)(9) and RNIC 4 -S -100(G)14). A Derr fouilecn (14) day appeal period Shall commence upon the issuance of the recon3ideraticr ,Additional information regarding the appeal 19 proctitis may be obtained from the City Clerk's O'Tce, Renton City° Hall -- 7:h floor, (425) 430-6510. 2{1 3 Affected property owners may rctttre_t a change in valuation for property' tax purposes rwtwritl7standing 21 any prog,rarn of revaluation. 22 23 24 25 26 I PR1 1.,FA iN1AP,Y PIAT - 30 it Denis Law Mayor -.M00000��r January 22, 2015 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26" St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 City of V City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-000241) KC Superior Case No.: 14-2-31273-3 KNT Dear Mr. Lagers: A full copy of the Land Use file for the aforementioned matter has been filed with King County Superior Court. If you would like a copy, please call the Renton City Clerk's Office at 425 430-6510. The certified copy of the file will cost $241.00 and the non -certified copy will cost $231.00. Please identify whether you want a certified or non -certified copy, whether you want it as an electronic copy or an unbound paper copy, and please be ready to make payment when documents are picked up. If you have any specific questions concerning the file, please feel free to call Cindy Moya at (425) 430-6510. Sincerely, Chris L. Chau Deputy City Clerk CC' Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Parties of Record (17) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/ Fax (425)430-6516* rentonwa.gov David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5th PI. 651.2 SE 5th PI Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. Roger Paulson Marsha Bollinger to 6617 SE 5 P!. 6618 SE 4 PI. 9675 SE 36 St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Peter & Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton, WA 98056 Gary & Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166 th PI SE 6220 SE 2nd PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004156 th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 orsell Tom Carpenter Kathyy d 15006 SE 139th PI. M.A. Huniu n 15451 SE 142 PI. Renton, WA 98059 660$ SE 5th PI. , Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 PNW Attorneys: Bre Kms. brc@vnf.com rd r4 A z -1'N twk q�Joq-1?28 Cynthia Moya From: Garmon Newsom II Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:55 AM To: 'Ray Liaw' Cc: Jennifer D. Sower; Jason Seth Subject: RE: LUPA Record - Paulsen case Good Morning Ray, Yes. Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion_ Gcu-ww-s2� Scinor Assistant t.lt.\- Attornc1 (:its of Renton 1055 South (�radv Way Rcnto:l, Wasliiltgton 98057 425-430-648-7 (Tclehhoiic) t y � t\� ti(i11��C! PC"LltotlE�'A.�T� ri" 000 f, CitypaF r i CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This message may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege. If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or distribution of its contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed above and delete this_message without printing, copying, or forwarding it. Thank you. Garmon From: Ray Liaw [mailto;hrl4jvnf.com.] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:48 AM To: Garman Newsom Il Cc: Jennifer D. Sower Subject: LUPA Record - Paulsen case Garmon, This letter was received by our client regarding the record in the Paulsen LUPA case. Can you please ensure that City staff communicates directly with me or Brent on all matters related to this appeal? I'll ask our assistant to coordinate with the City Clerk's office to obtain an electronic copy. Thanks Ray Liaw I Attorney Van Ness Feldman LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WashinEton 98104-1728 {206} 623-9372 1 hrl@vnf.corn I vnf.com This communicution rno Con toin information and%or metadata that is legally privileged, confide rriai or exempt from disticsure. ff you are notMe intended recipient, pease do nor read or review the content and/or metadato and do not di55errrinofe, disrrihate or copy this communication, Anyone who receives this messoge in errorshould notify rhe senderinnmediweiy by telephone (206 U.39372) or 6y return e mail and delete ii from his or her tompvrer. Your Contact information ' F Name Stephanie Rary Phone Number (425) 430-6493 Email srary@rentonwa.gov Date: January 20, 2015 GREY HOUNDLL.U, ,..COM. Legal Messenger Courier Slip MB --05.2 Cause Number Priority of Service, Same Day T King County 14-2-31273-3 KNT __.-__---- -.---- Type of Service Filing. - File Number L,UA 14-000241, PP, ECF. ----1-------1 - Conformed Copies: Yes ❑ No ❑ Case Name —Roger A. Paulsen and Jason M; Paulsen, POA for Judith Paulsen v. City of Renton and PNW Holdings, LLC ry Deliver To To Clerk of the Court �a Maleng Regional Justice Center i 401 4th Avenue North, 2C Kent, WA 98032 and [ Honorable Judge Thorp Maleng Regional Justice Center: Judges' Mailroom 401 4th Avenue North, 2D Return To Stephanie Rary Renton City Attorney's Office 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Special Instructions / Descriptions / Notes On Tuesday, January 20, 2015, after 10:00 a.m., please pick up the documents at the Renton City Clerk's office, 1055 i South Grady Way, 7th Floor, Renton, WA 98057 (see Cindy Maya, (425) 430-6510), and file them with the Clerk of the Court. Then, please deliver the Judge Thorps' working copies to the Judges' Mailroom. Please return stamped copies of the Declaration of Chris Chau and the Public Records Certification (mail is fine). ;'Please note there will be 2 boxes (1 for Cleric and 1 for Judge Thorp) containing over 1,500 pages each. Thank you. Print List of Documents - Declaration of Chris Chau - Public Records Certification - Certified Copy of City of Renton File No. LUA-14-000241, PP, ECF Received By: s I<„ 1'it r -- Signature GreyhoundLegal@gmail.com Phone: (253) 230-9675 Fax: (253)271-7727 Denis Law Mayor City of 1W r� } ? �i,l ,C0 V City Clerk - Jason A. Seth' CMC Public Records Certification January 16, 2015 Clerk of the Court Maleng Regional Justice Center 4014th Avenue North, Room 2D Kent, WA 98032 To Clerk of the Court: I, Chris Chau, the undersigned Deputy City Clerk of the City of Renton, hereby certify that the attached 1,540 pages are authentic and true copies of the Land Use Application File No. LUA- 14-000241, PP, ECF, known as the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, on file in the City . Clerk's Office of the City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Chris Chau, Deputy City Clerk _ 1055 S Grady Way, Suite 728 v C— Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6510 Fax: 425.430.6516s E_ _* AL � 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430.6510 /Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov f Denis Law Mayor January 16, 2015 City of 0 N'1 City Cleric -Jason A.Seth,CMC Public Records Certification Honorable Judge Thorp Judges' Mailroom Maleng Regional Justice Center 4014th Avenue North, Room 21) Kent, WA 98032 Honorable Judge Thorp: I, Chris Chau, the undersigned Deputy City Clerk of the City of Renton, hereby certify that the attached 1,540 pages are authentic and true copies of the Land Use Application File No. LUA- 14-000241, PP, ECF, known as the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, on file in the City Clerk's Office of the City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. City of ton Chris Chau, Deputy City Clerk 1055 S Grady Way, Suite 728 Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6510 Fax: 425.430.6516 IDS IN Q 0z NVP S# SEAL 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 - (425)430-6510/ Fax (425)430-6516- rentonwa.gov 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 JAN z0 ASA sufl FRICIR C01 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING ROGER A. PAULSEN AND JASON M, PAULSEN, POA FOR JUDITH PAULSEN, ) CASE NO. 14-2-31273-3 KNT Petitioner, ) DECLARATION OF CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal ) CHRIS L. CHAU Corporation, and PNW HOLDINGS, LLC, a ) Washington limited liability company. ) I, Chris L. Chau, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, declare: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Renton as the Deputy City Clerk; 2. Attached to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of File No. LUA-14-000241, PP, ECF, known as the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Land Use Application file that pertains to the above -captioned case. This copy was compiled and is hereby certified by the Renton Deputy City Clerk as to its authenticity. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. � rf'.'� Executed at Renton, Washington, this L°__ day of January 2015. DECLARATION OF CHRIS L. CHAD— Page 1 Chris L. Chau, Deputy City Clerk City of Renton Renton City Clerk * 1055 S Grady Way ♦ „t Renton, WA 98067 Phone: 425.430.6510 n7�Q Fax: 425.430.6516 Denis Law Mayor January 16, 2015 City of W a> City Clerk - Jason A. Seth, CMC Public Records Certification Clerk of the Court Maleng Regional Justice Center 4014th Avenue North, Room 2D Kent, WA 98032 To Clerk of the Court: 1, Chris Chau, the undersigned Deputy City Clerk of the City of Renton, hereby certify that the attached 1,540 pages are authentic and true copies of the Land Use Application File No. LUA- 14-000241, PP, ECF, known as the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, on file in the City Clerk's Office of the City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Chris Chau, Deputy City Clerk 1055 S Grady Way, Suite 728 Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6510 Fax: 425.430.6516 SEAL �L�t] S�'� 7055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 . (425)430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6576 + rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor January 16, 2015 rCity of W ;,� r, iJ uh f City Clerk - Jason A. Seth, CMC Public Records Certification Honorable Judge Thorp Judges' Mailroom Maleng Regional Justice Center 4014th Avenue North, Room 2D Kent, WA 98032 Honorable Judge Thorp: I, Chris Chau, the undersigned Deputy City Clerk of the City of Renton, hereby certify that the attached 1,540 pages are authentic and true copies of the Land Use Application File No. LUA- 14-000241, PP, ECF, known as the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, on file in the City Clerk's Office of the City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. City of ton Chris Chau, Deputy City Clerk 1055 S Grady Way, Suite 728 Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6510 Fax: 425.430.6516 SEAL � �c D 6 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 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 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING ROGER A. PAULSEN AND JASON M. PAULSEN, POA FOR JUDITH PAULSEN, Petitioner, CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation, and PNW HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. CASE NO. 14-2-31273-3 KNT DECLARATION OF CHRIS L. CHAU I, Chris L. Chau, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, declare: 1. I am employed by the City of Renton as the Deputy City Clerk; 2. Attached to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of File No. LUA-14-000241, PP, ECF, known as the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Land Use Application file that pertains to the above -captioned case. This copy was compiled and is hereby certified by the Renton Deputy City Clerk as to its authenticity. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. r�' �r Executed at Renton, Washington, this L day of January 2015. I DECLARATION OF CHRIS L. CHAD— Page Z Chris L. Chau, Deputy City Clerk City of Renton Y Renton City Clerk + ♦ 1455 Grady Way „u Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.434.651 0 NrO Fax: 425.430.6516 Your Contact information 'I-te: January 20, 2015 Name Stephanie Rary Phone Number (425) 430-6493 6 KL Y U �_ : �. , �-lUN CUm Email _ _ .... srary@rentonwa.gov j Legal Messenger Courier Slip MB-CS.2 Cause Number Priori of Service Same . _ ..,w,.n.: ay s King County 14-2-31273-3 KNT �,-- Type of service Filing File Number LUA-14-000241, PP, ECF Conformed Copies: Yes No Case Name Roger A. Paulsen and Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith Paulsen v. City of Renton and PNW Holdings, LLC Deliver To Clerk of the Court Maleng Regional Justice Center 401 4th Avenue North, 2C j Kent, WA 98032 and Honorable Judge Thorp Maleng Regional Justice Center: Judges' Mailroom 401 4th Avenue North, 2D Return To .......... ........ ......_...... _ ._..... _.._._ ..... _ ... Stephanie Rary Renton City Attorney's Office 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 7 Special Instructions 1 Descriptions! Notes On Tuesday, January 20, 2015, after 10:00 a.m., please pick up the documents at the Renton City Clerk's office, 1055 ' South Grady Way, 7th Floor, Renton, WA 98057 (see Cindy Moya, (425) 430-6510), and file them with the Clerk of the Court. Then, please deliver the Judge Thorps' working copies to the Judges' Mailroom. Please return stamped copies of the Declaration of Chris Chau and the Public Records Certification (mail is fine). *Please note there will be 2 boxes (1 for Clerk and 1 for Judge Thorp) containing over 1,500 pages each. Thank you. Print List of Documents - Declaration of Chris Chau - Public Records Certification - Certified Copy of City of Renton File No. LUA-14-000241, PP, ECF Received By: Name: job "1'itic.._. Datc/Time: Signature GreyhoundLegal@gmail.com Phone: (253) 230-9675 Fax: (253)271-7727 Cynthia Moya From: Stephanie Rary Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:14 PM To: Tye G. Goetz / GreyhoundLegal.com (tyegoetz@gmail.com) Cc: Cynthia Moya; Garmon Newsom H Subject: Schedule for Service Tuesday Attachments: Courier Slip for January 20 2015.pdf Hi Tye We are requesting courier service on Tuesday, January 20, 2015, after 10:00 a.m., for Paulsen et al v. Renton et al, KCSC No. 14-2-31273-3 KNT. Please pick up the documents at the Renton City Clerk's office, 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor, Renton, WA 98057 (see Cindy Moya, (425) 430-6510), and file them with the Clerk of the Court. Then, please deliver the Judge Tharps' working copies to the Judges' Mailroom. Please return to me stamped copies of the Declaration of Chris Chau and the Public Records Certification (mail is fine). *Please note there will be two boxes (one for Clerk and one for Judge Thorp) containing over 1,500 pages each. I have attached the completed courier slip. Please let me know if you can accommodate our request. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Rary, Paralegal Renton City Attorney 425-430-6493 / 42S-430-6498 (fax) scar c rentonwa. ov Confidentiality Statement This message may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege. If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or distribution of its contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please contact meat the telephone number are -mail address listed above and delete this messaee without printing, copying, or forwarding it. Thank you. ITEMS BELOW THIS SHEET HAVE BEEN COPIED FOR SUPERIOR COURT ****DO NOT ADD ANYTHING BELOW THIS SHEET **** 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY ROGER A. PAULSEN AND JASON M. PAULSEN, POA FOR JUDITH PAULSEN, Petitioner, V. CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation, and PNW HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Respondents. STIPULATION CASE NO. 14-2-31273-3 KNi' STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING RESPONDENTS OUIMET AND NIPERT AND WAIVING INITIAL HEARING PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70C_080(5) The parties to the above -captioned litigation hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. All claims against the landowners G. Richard Ouimet and Sally Lou Nipert named as respondents in this action shall he dismissed without prejudice and without an award of casts or fees to any party. All claims between petitioners Roger A. Paulsen and Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith Paulsen (collectively, "Petitioners") and respondents City of Renton and PNW Holdings, LLC (collectively, "Respondents") remain in the case. 2. The initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters presently scheduled for January 9, 2015 is hereby waived pursuant to RCW 36.700.0$0(5). STIPULATION AND ORDER - I Van Ness Feldman,,, 719 Second A-.enue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 {206)623-9372 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 3. The defenses of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of standing, untimely filing or service of the petition, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are hereby waived, and the Petitioners' land use petition should be resolved by trial on the merits in the assigned judicial department on April 20, 2015 as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule dated November 17, 2014. 4. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(1), the City of Renton shall submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the Hearing Examiner's decisions in this matter, as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule. The parties agree that, pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(2), the record may be shortened to avoid reproduction of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the issues raised in the Petitioners' land use petition. 5. The City shall provide Petitioners and PNW Holdings with a copy of the certified record on the date the certified record is filed with the Court. Each party shall pay the City's actual costs incurred in producing the copy of the certified record for that party. And, Petitioners shall reimburse the City's actual costs incurred in producing the certified record to be filed in the Superior Court, subject to potential future reimbursement by the other parties pursuant to RCW 345.70C.] 10(4). The parties shall pay the City any payments due under this paragraph within fifteen (15) days of receiving an invoice from the City for the same. 6. Subject to potential future reimbursement by other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(4), Petitioners shall prepare at its expense and submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a verbatim transcript of the proceedings held on June 24, October 23, and October 27, 2014 before the City. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C-1 10(2), Petitioners G STIPULATION AND ORDER - 2 Van Ness Feldman,,, 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seat Ile WA 9$104 (206} 623-9372 1', 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may shorten the transcript to avoid transcribing portions of the proceedings that are not relevant to the issues raised in Petitioners' land use petition. 7. Petitioners shall provide Respondents with a copy of the verbatim transcript on the date the transcript is filed with the Court. Each respondent shall pay the court reporting Firm that prepares the transcript directly for the amount killed for the co Py of-thc transcript for each respondent. 8. The Court should enter an Order reflecting the terns of this Stipulation, as set forth below. STIPULATED AND AGREED TO this day of December, 2014. STIPULATION AND ORDER - 3 VAN NESS FELD1vlAN LLP I By,— Br nt Car n, WSBA 416240 K Ray Liaw, WSBA #40725 Attorneys for PNW Holdings. Respondent CITY OF RENTON, CITY A -f TORNEY By: `1. � �Ck 1. 0—' 0 k -t' � Larry Wdren, WSBA 0853 Garmon Newsom 11, WSBA 43 14 1 s Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent By. 0 G. Richard Ouimet, Respondent ,r By -.LIE Sally Lou Mipc t, RespunCdnt Van Ness Feldman 7151 yi'econil Avenue Stine, 1+50 Seattle. VVA 56 i ud (206)621-8772 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 Roger A. Paulsen, Petitioner By: 4 ri� (1 11 1 ck tt i V�iy,�tui 'w 1 Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. Paulsen, Petitioner ORDER This matter came before the Court on the above joined Stipulation of the parties. Based on the Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1, All claims by or against G, Richard Ouimet and Sally Lou Nipert in this action are dismissed without prejudice and without an award of costs or fees to any party. All claims between Petitioners and Respondents remain in the case. 2. The initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters is hereby waived pursuant to RCW 36.70C.080(5). 3. The defenses of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of standing, untimely filing or service of the petition, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are hereby waived, and the assigned department of this Court has jurisdiction to and may review and resolve Petitioners' land use petition on April 20, 2015 as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule dated November 17, 2014, 4. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.1 I0(1), the City of Renton shall submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the Hearing Examiner's decisions in this matter, as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(2), the City may shorten the record to avoid reproduction of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the issues raised in the Petitioners' land use petition. STIPULATION AND ORDER - 4 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (2013) 823-9372 f 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 5, The City shall provide Petitioners and PNW Holdings with a copy of the certified record on the date the certified record is filed with the Court. Each party shall pay the City's actual costs incurred in producing the copy of the certified record for that party, And, Petitioners shall reimburse the City's actual costs incurred in producing the certified record to be filed in the Superior Court, subject to potential future reimbursement by the other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(4). The parties shall pay the City any payments due under this paragraph within fifteen (15) days of receiving an invoice from the City for the same. 6. Subject to potential future reimbursement by other parties pursuant to RCW 36.700.1 10(4), Petitioners shall prepare at its expense and submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a verbatim transcript of the proceedings held on June 24, October 23, and October 27, 2014 before the City. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(2), Petitioners may shorten the transcript to avoid transcribing portions of the proceedings that are not relevant to the issues raised in Petitioners' land use petition. 7. Petitioners shall provide Respondents with a copy of the verbatim transcript on the date the transcript is filed with the Court. Each respondent shall pay the court reporting firm that prepares the transcript directly for the amount billed for the copy of the transcript for each respondent. STIPULATION AND ORDER - 5 Van Nass Feldman 719Secord Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 ;206)623-8372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Presented by: VAN NEss FEL�LLP By: A t L01 �. Brenf Carson, WSBA # 16240 H. Ray Liaw, WSBA 940725 Attorneys for PNW Holdings LLC Approved for Entry; Notice of Presentation Waived: CITY OF RENTON, CITY ATTORNEY B-V--C-.k. '1 (l�. L .L� t �,t�'vc. it 4 By- Ljhy Warren, WSBA #5853 Crarmon Newsom II, WSBA #31418 Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent Fav: . G. Richard Ouiniet, RespVdew By: Salle Lou Mpert, Respond nt By: (-),o � . L n Roger A. Paulsen, Petitioner / J -on M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. 1'�aufsen, Petitioner STIPULATION AND ORDER - 6 Van Ness Feldman .,z 7113 Se"nei Avenue Suite 1159 Seattle. WA 96104 (208) 823.9172